PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 13, 2013
Title X Amendments Act of 2013 - Amends the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 to revise the purpose for grants for lead-based paint hazard reduction in target housing.
Requires such grants to be made instead for reduction of lead-based paint hazards and correction of other housing-related hazards.
Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a process by which, in order to verify a family's income level, a grantee may first obtain and use income and program participation information from an entity administering: (1) the HOME Investment Partnerships program under the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act; (2) the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) established under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966; (3) reduced price or free lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; (4) the weatherization assistance program for low-income persons established under the Energy Conservation and Production Act; (5) the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA); (6) the supplemental security income (SSI) program under SSA title XVI; or (7) any other program consistent with the family income requirements of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes eligible to apply for such a grant, in addition to certain state or local governments, for specified activities relating to lead-based paint hazards: (1) an Indian tribe, and (2) private nonprofit organization partnering with the state or unit of general local government in which the activities will be carried out.
Makes a private nonprofit organization not partnering with a state or local government eligible all the same to apply for a grant to reduce housing-related health hazards, including any condition of residential real property that poses a risk of biological, physical, radiological, or chemical exposure that can adversely affect human health.
Revises grantee selection criteria for a grant to carry out activities relating to lead-based paint hazards, and prescribes criteria for activities relating to housing-related hazards.
Prescribes an allocation of funds for grants to assess and correct housing-related health hazards and evaluate the effectiveness of such assessments and corrections.
Reauthorizes the Act for FY2014-FY2018.
People & committees
Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S709)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.290 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.290 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.290 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.290 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.