[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7738-S7739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             EPA OVERSIGHT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today 
to speak about the importance of oversight.
  As you may recall, on April 22, 2010, EPA's new lead-based paint, the 
lead, renovation, repair and painting rule, went into effect. At that 
time, offices on the Hill were inundated with intense public outcry 
from constituents--from homeowners to contractors to landlords to 
plumbers--all trying to get more information about a rule that, in most 
cases, they had just learned about. People were confused about the 
implications of the rule.
  This rule affects anyone who owns or lives in a home built before 
1978 and looking to do a renovation. Specifically, the rule requires 
that renovations in these homes that disturb more than six square feet 
must be supervised by a certified renovator and conducted by a 
certified renovation firm. In order to become certified, contractors 
must submit an application--with a fee--to EPA, and complete a training 
course for instruction on lead-safe work practices. Those who violate 
the rule could face a fine of $37,500 a day.
  In my role as ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, prior to implementation, I sent several letters to EPA 
expressing concern with the rate of training. I wrote on two separate 
occasions warning EPA that it seemed badly unprepared to properly 
implement the rule. In both cases, EPA said they were ready.
  In a June 3, 2009 letter responding to my concerns, EPA wrote:

       I agree that both EPA and the regulated community have a 
     great deal of preparation in front of us as we approach next 
     April's deadline. I am confident, however, that the ten 
     months between now and April 2010 will allow us to meet this 
     deadline....We are confident that all renovators subject to 
     the requirements of the rule will be able to find a provider 
     in advance of our deadline.

  In a letter dated December 1, 2009, EPA wrote:

       we are confident there will be enough training providers to 
     meet the demand. EPA does not plan to revise the April 2010 
     effective date of the RRP rule....Currently, the capacity for 
     training is in excess of the demand as several training 
     courses have been cancelled for lack of attendance.

  On implementation day, April 22, 2010, EPA had only accredited 204 
training providers who had conducted just over 6,900 courses, training 
an estimated 160,000 people in the construction and remodeling 
industries to use lead-safe work practices. That number fell far short 
of the total number of remodelers who would be working on pre-1978 
homes.
  Let me say it again: on implementation day, EPA had only trained an 
estimated 160,000 people in the construction and remodeling industries 
to use lead-safe work practices.
  I suspected that there wouldn't be enough contractors to even meet 
EPA's estimate of certifying 186,811 renovators by April 2010. So I 
sent a bipartisan letter to OMB requesting that they delay 
implementation of the rule until there was enough time for more people 
to be certified. Additionally, I spoke to Cass Sunstein, Administrator 
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, and was 
joined by some of my Oklahoma contractors, who relayed the difficulties 
they were facing. I appreciate Mr. Sunstein listening to the concerns 
of my Oklahoma constituents. He told us he recognized the economic 
impact of the implementation of the rule and explored ways to provide a 
60-day delay, but, by April 23, we simply ran out of options.
  The rule was in place, there were not enough renovators, and EPA 
argued that a delay in the rule would delay

[[Page S7739]]

protection for children and their families. But because the Federal 
Government failed to meet the demand for certified contractors, the 
Federal Government was already delaying the implementation of the rule.
  I was proud that the Senate intervened to send a clear message to 
EPA. The Senate passed the Collins-Inhofe amendment, S. 4253, to the 
supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4899, by a vote of 60 to 37.
  This amendment prevented supplemental funds from being used to 
implement the rule. The vote showed overwhelming bipartisan concern 
about EPA's disastrous implementation of the lead-based paint rule.
  Fortunately, EPA got the message. On June 18, 2010, EPA's enforcement 
office issued a memorandum extending the lead rule deadline for 
renovators to enroll in training classes to September 30, 2010. 
Furthermore, it has extended the deadline for contractors to complete 
training to December 31, 2010, and most importantly, the agency agreed 
to work to provide additional trainers in areas of need.
  EPA's concerns about extending additional time for renovators to 
become certified never materialized; in fact, instead of people 
continuing to delay signing up for classes, people flocked to them. 
EPA's most recent training numbers show that as of September 23, 2010, 
EPA has accredited 364 training providers who have conducted more than 
21,400 courses, training an estimated 476,700 people in the 
construction and remodeling industries to use lead-safe work practices.
  From just 160,000 people in April, to 476,700 people in September, 
more time has meant greater ability to take classes and come into 
compliance.
  The delay has allowed another 160 training providers to be certified; 
an additional 14,500 courses to be held; and 316,700 people to receive 
training in lead safe work practices.
  Unfortunately, we did not have one oversight hearing on this rule. 
There were numerous opportunities prior to the rule going final, but 
they were never taken. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have worked with 
Senators Collins, Alexander, Vitter, Coburn and others to highlight 
this important issue and provide additional time for renovators to 
attend training classes.

                          ____________________