Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2010--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am not going to call up my amendment at this time because I understand there is an objection on the other side. But I
am going to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss my amendment, which is No. 4218. This is an amendment I have offered on behalf of myself and Senators Inhofe, Alexander, Brown, Brownback, Gregg, Snowe, Coburn, Bond, Murkowski, Voinovich, Burr, Begich, and Corker.

On April 22, a new Environmental Protection Agency regulation regarding lead paint abatement went into effect. Lead paint has been of great concern to me for a number of years. I actually joined with the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in holding field hearings on the dangers of lead paint in older houses several years ago. It has long been a concern of mine. I support the purpose of this rule because we want to continue our efforts to rid toxic lead-based paint from our homes.

I am deeply concerned, however, as are many of my colleagues, that the EPA has completely botched the implementation of this rule. The rule requires that contractors who were hired to do work in homes that have lead paint must first be certified to perform this work. We put the cart before the horse with this rule and the result is that the EPA has not ensured that there is a sufficient number of trainers to provide the training and the certification for these contractors. That means many contractors simply cannot get the necessary certification in most States.

The result is that small business men and women are losing out on jobs at a time when many of them are in desperate need of work. Ironically, it also means that lead paint that homeowners want removed or mitigated will not be.

In my State of Maine, for example, as of last week we have only three EPA trainers in the entire State to certify contractors. Just over 10 percent of the State's contractors have been certified. Hundreds of Maine's contractors have signed up for the training but they have been forced to wait. Their names are languishing on waiting lists, some for as long as 2 months.

It is hard to envision how much worse a job EPA could have done in rolling out this regulation and it is not as if EPA did not know this was coming. EPA has had years to plan for the proper implementation of this regulation. Unfortunately, the EPA's rule carries a big penalty for contractors who do not get the required training. If contractors who perform work in homes built before 1978 are not EPA certified, they face fines of up to $37,500 per violation per day. Many of the painters in my State doing this work don't earn $37,000 in an entire year. How unfair it is when it is the EPA's fault in many cases that they are not certified. The lack of training and the EPA fines are creating a no-win situation. If contractors who have not received the EPA training work in these older homes, they face the possibility of literally losing their businesses, of being fined out of existence, due to the severity of the EPA fines. Meanwhile, the lead paint remains, raising the threat of lead poisoning and its significant health impacts.

I have been trying to work with EPA officials since this problem first became evident to me in early March, but they have offered absolutely no reasonable accommodations, no reasonable solutions. In fact, it took the EPA 7 weeks to even offer any ideas for getting more trainers to the State of Maine--and even then the EPA's proposals were unworkable.

I come to the floor to offer a common sense solution to a problem created by Washington's poor planning. My bipartisan amendment, which is cosponsored by so many of my colleagues--and let me give the list again. Senators Alexander, Inhofe, Brown, Brownback, Gregg, Snowe, Coburn, Bond, Murkowski, Voinovich, Burr, Begich, and Corker--would prohibit the EPA from imposing fines against contractors who have signed up for the required training classes by September 30 of this year. This delay will allow, I hope, adequate time for contractors to comply with the law and to get the required training without fear of a fine that could well put them out of business.

To be clear, our amendment does not stop the EPA from punishing those who willingly break the law and endanger a child's well-being. It simply gives the EPA more time to ensure that there is a sufficient number of trainers in each State, and it simply protects that small painter, that small businessman, that small contractor, from unfairly being fined when it is the EPA's fault he or she cannot get the required training.

Inconceivably, I have heard the EPA say it has trained an adequate number of people in Maine, so let me give you the statistics for my State, because they are typical of many States. First, EPA estimates that there are only 1,400 contractors in Maine. In fact, however, there are more than 20,000 contractors in our State; not 1,400, but 20,000 people who need to be trained.

EPA makes another erroneous assumption. It assumes that all of these people are part of large businesses and that only one person at each business needs to be certified.

EPA also assumes that contractors specialize in doing just old homes or new homes. Completely false. That makes no sense at all in a rural State such as Maine, which has some of the oldest housing stock in the country and most painters are small shops, usually just an individual who is self-employed. At most, he might be part of a small business where there are two or three people who are doing the work. In addition, these individuals work in mixed communities which have older homes and newer homes. This is typical of every community in my State.

We cannot ask them to give up working in older homes simply because an economist at the EPA does not understand what our housing stock looks like in Maine. Furthermore, most of the EPA's classes have been held in the southern part of the State. It is not feasible for people to have to travel hundreds of miles in order to obtain this training. I have heard that criticism and that problem from my colleagues in other States as well, that the EPA is offering the classes only in cities and has completely neglected the rural parts of their states.

My home State of Maine is not the only State trapped in this bureaucratic dilemma. An EPA evaluation from early May shows, for example, that Hawaii only has two trainers. I cannot imagine how that can work in Hawaii given the islands. That is not feasible. Mississippi has only one trainer in the entire State. Three States--Louisiana, Wyoming, and South Dakota--do not have a single EPA-certified trainer.

This is just not fair. It is not fair that these small contractors live under the threat of these onerous fines that would put many of them out of business, when it is not their fault they cannot obtain the training--it is EPA's fault.

All of us understand that lead is a dangerous toxin and we must work to do whatever we can to keep our homes and our children safe. But the burden should not fall upon the shoulders of small contractors and construction professionals, painters and others, who are trying their best to comply with EPA's rule.

Spring is home renovation season in most States. The small business men and women of Maine are just gearing up for the spring and summer months, and they are trying to recover from the great recession which has been so hard on their businesses. The onerous and unfair fines of more than $37,000 per day could put many of them out of business even as they wait for an EPA training class to become available.

As they are waiting, if they choose not to do this work, they are losing income as well, and that is unfair. All I am attempting to do with this amendment is provide the EPA with more time in order to increase the number of certified trainers and the offering of these classes.

With enough trainers, we can eventually ensure the success of this program. But without enough trainers, we are guaranteeing its failure and penalizing innocent contractors who are simply trying to make a living and who have been unable to secure the training required by the EPA.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source