GET THE LEAD OUT Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to eradicate lead pipe hazards in housing, funding the effort through substantial changes to tax law concerning investment management services and estate taxes.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a comprehensive national strategy to eliminate lead-based pipes and taps in housing, primarily through grants for hazard reduction, mandates for federally assisted housing, and new training and certification requirements. It also includes significant revenue provisions related to partnership interests, investment management services, and estate and gift taxes to fund these initiatives.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill addresses a critical public health crisis, particularly for children in low-income housing, by providing robust funding and a clear framework for lead pipe removal. They would emphasize the long-term health and economic benefits of preventing lead poisoning. The tax provisions are framed as ensuring fair contributions from high-income earners and investment managers to fund essential public infrastructure and health initiatives.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's scope and cost are excessive, potentially imposing significant burdens on property owners and the federal budget. They may also contend that the tax provisions in Title IV are overly broad, could stifle investment, or represent an inappropriate use of tax policy to fund specific programs, potentially leading to economic distortions. Concerns about federal overreach into local infrastructure and housing standards could also be raised.
The bill is substantial and covers diverse policy areas, requiring significant time for a thorough review, especially given the complex tax provisions.
Sec. 101
HUD Grants for Lead Pipe Hazard Reduction
This section authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide grants to states and local governments. These grants are intended for evaluating and reducing lead-based pipe hazards in affordable housing that does not already receive federal assistance. Eligible activities include risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, abatement, temporary relocation assistance for families, public education, and monitoring of workers' blood-lead levels.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides essential funding and a clear framework for states and localities to address a critical public health issue in vulnerable communities, directly improving health outcomes.
Critics contend
Critics might argue about the administrative burden placed on states and localities to manage these grant programs, or the overall cost to federal taxpayers.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for federal support to address a widespread public health issue with the desire for local control over implementation, while also managing the fiscal impact.
Sec. 102
Mandates for Lead Hazard Reduction in Federally Assisted Housing
This section requires HUD to implement measures for risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, and abatement of lead-based pipe hazards in federally assisted housing. It sets a schedule for initial risk assessments (50% within 5 years, remainder within 10 years) and integrates lead hazard reduction into various existing federal housing programs, including public housing, HOME Investment Partnerships, Community Development Block Grants, Section 8 rental assistance, FHA insurance, and rural housing programs.
Sec. 104
Lead Pipe Hazard Reduction and Financing Task Force
This section establishes a task force, co-chaired by the Secretary of HUD and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its purpose is to make recommendations on expanding resources and efforts to evaluate and reduce lead-based pipe hazards in private housing. The task force will include representatives from various government agencies, industry groups (e.g., real estate, lending), labor organizations, and advocacy groups, focusing on financing, underwriting standards, liability, and insurance.
Sec. 107
Lead Hazard Disclosure for Residential Property Transfers
This section mandates that sellers and lessors of housing built prior to 1986 disclose any known lead-based pipe hazards to prospective purchasers or lessees. They must also provide a lead hazard information pamphlet and allow a 10-day period for the purchaser to conduct a risk assessment or inspection. All purchase contracts must include a specific 'Lead Warning Statement' about the risks of lead poisoning. Knowing violations can result in civil money penalties and civil liability.
Sec. 201
EPA Lead Pipe Activities Training and Certification
This section requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations for training and certification of individuals involved in lead-based pipe activities (risk assessment, inspection, abatement) and for the accreditation of training programs. All such activities in housing must be performed by certified contractors. The EPA must also issue guidelines for renovation and remodeling activities that could create lead exposure risks and conduct a study on worker exposure, with a determination on applying certification requirements to renovation activities within four years.
Sec. 203
State Authorization for Lead Exposure Reduction Programs
This section allows states to develop and submit their own programs to administer and enforce lead-based pipe activity standards, provided these programs are at least as protective as federal standards and include adequate enforcement. Upon approval, state programs would operate in lieu of federal ones. The EPA is authorized to make grants to states for developing and carrying out these programs. If a state does not establish an authorized program within two years of federal regulations, the EPA will establish a federal program for that state.
Sec. 204
National Program for Lead Abatement and Measurement
This section directs the EPA, in cooperation with other federal agencies, to conduct a comprehensive program to promote safe, effective, and affordable monitoring, detection, and abatement of lead-based pipe hazards. It requires the EPA to establish standards for environmental sampling laboratories and certify them, and mandates studies on sources of lead exposure in children and occupational exposures. Additionally, it establishes public education and outreach activities, including a National Clearinghouse on Childhood Lead Poisoning and a single lead-based pipe hazard hotline.
Sec. 207
Federal Facilities Compliance with Lead Hazard Rules
This section mandates that all federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local requirements regarding lead-based pipe hazards. This includes certification, licensing, recordkeeping, reporting, injunctive relief, and penalties. The provision explicitly waives federal immunity, ensuring that federal entities are subject to the same standards and enforcement as non-governmental entities, including the payment of fines and service charges.
Sec. 301
Authorization for HUD Lead Hazard Reduction Grants
This section authorizes the appropriation of $9,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2035. These funds are designated for grants under Section 101 of this Act (for lead-based pipe hazard reduction) and Section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (for lead-based paint hazard reduction).
Sec. 302
Authorization for EPA Lead Exposure Reduction Funding
This section authorizes the appropriation of "such sums as may be necessary" for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2035. These funds are intended to carry out Title II of this Act (Lead Exposure Reduction), Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and other lead hazard reduction activities that the EPA Administrator is authorized to undertake, including those under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Sec. 401
Taxation of Partnership Interests for Services
This section amends Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code to modify how partnership interests transferred in connection with the performance of services are taxed. It specifies that the fair market value of such an interest, for tax purposes, is equal to the amount the partner would receive if the partnership sold all its assets at fair market value and distributed the proceeds in liquidation. Unless the recipient elects otherwise, they are treated as having made an election to include this value in their gross income in the year of transfer.
Sec. 402
Carried Interest Recharacterization and Taxation
This section adds a new Section 710 to the Internal Revenue Code, which recharacterizes net capital gain from 'investment services partnership interests' as ordinary income, with limitations for losses. It also treats gain on the disposition of such interests as ordinary income. The section defines 'investment services partnership interest' and 'investment partnership' and includes exceptions for 'qualified capital interests' and domestic C corporations. It imposes a 40% penalty for underpayments due to avoidance of this section and includes investment services partnership income/loss in net earnings from self-employment.
Sec. 403
Reduction of Estate and Gift Tax Exclusion Amount
This section amends Section 2010(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code by striking subparagraph (C). This action effectively returns the basic exclusion amount for estate and gift taxes to its pre-2018 level, which was approximately $5 million per individual (indexed for inflation), rather than the significantly higher exclusion amount enacted in 2017.
The bill sets a phased schedule for initial risk assessments in federally assisted housing: 50% of dwelling units within 5 years and the remainder within 10 years after enactment.
Sec. 102(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for implementing large-scale programs, allowing agencies and housing providers time to ramp up operations and manage costs. It avoids an immediate, overwhelming demand for services.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a phased approach is practical and necessary to ensure orderly implementation, prevent bottlenecks in the supply of certified contractors, and manage the significant costs involved over a reasonable period.
Case against: Critics might contend that a 5-to-10-year timeline for initial assessments is too slow given the urgency of lead poisoning as a public health crisis, potentially leaving vulnerable children exposed for too long.
Estimated impact: Delays full identification of lead hazards in federally assisted housing for up to a decade.
The EPA Administrator has four years after enactment to revise regulations to apply certification requirements to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based pipe hazards, following a study on worker exposure.
Sec. 201(c)(3)
Why it matters:This represents a cautious, data-driven approach to expanding regulatory scope. It allows for research and stakeholder consultation before imposing new certification requirements on a broad industry, which is a common legislative strategy to mitigate immediate industry opposition.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this phased approach ensures new regulations are based on sound data regarding actual exposure risks, preventing overreach and ensuring cost-effective implementation for the renovation industry.
Case against: Critics might contend that a four-year delay in applying certification to renovation activities leaves workers and residents vulnerable to lead exposure during a common activity, arguing that the risks are already well-known.
Estimated impact: Delays comprehensive certification of renovation workers for lead-based pipe hazards for several years.
A 'Special rule for qualified family partnerships' provides an exception to the carried interest recharacterization rules for certain family-owned investment partnerships, allowing them to avoid some of the ordinary income treatment under specific conditions.
Sec. 402, new Section 710(d)(9)
Why it matters:Such specific exceptions are often included to address concerns from particular constituencies (e.g., family offices, intergenerational wealth transfer) that might otherwise oppose the broader tax changes. Its technical nature makes it less visible to the general public.
Case for: Proponents of this carve-out would argue it protects legitimate family wealth management structures from unintended consequences of broader tax reforms, ensuring that family businesses and investment vehicles are not unduly penalized.
Case against: Critics would contend that this exception undermines the stated goal of tax fairness by creating a loophole for wealthy families, allowing them to avoid the ordinary income treatment applied to other investment managers.
Estimated impact: Reduces the total revenue generated by the carried interest provisions by an unknown amount, benefiting a specific subset of wealthy family partnerships.