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 · Sep 26, 2008
Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2008 - Amends the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, with respect to lead-based paint hazards in housing, to set the environmental intervention blood lead level as equal to the lower of: (1) ten micrograms of lead per deciliter; or (2) the elevated blood lead level of concern for a child under six years of age recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to amend related regulations to comply with this Act within 90 days.
Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the status of the Department of Housing and Urban Development "Big Buy" program, and any other voluntary programs the Secretary has implemented or has planned to implement, through which the Secretary has conducted, or planned to conduct, lead evaluations of housing covered by the Lead Safe Housing Rule for pre-1978 assisted housing.
People & committees
Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] · D–NY
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.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.3609 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.3609 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.3609 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.3609 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.