Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to speak about the amended version of H.R. 4212, the Drywall Safety Act of 2012 returned to this Chamber by the Senate. The House approved its own version of H.R. 4212 this…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to speak about the amended version of H.R. 4212, the Drywall Safety Act of 2012 returned to this Chamber by the Senate.
The House approved its own version of H.R. 4212 this past September by a voice vote. That version was the result of bipartisan negotiations that involved the sponsors of this bill, Mr. Rigell of Virginia and Mr. Deutch of Florida, along with the leadership from both sides of the aisle of the Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
I believe the House produced a good bill that met Mr. Rigell's and Mr. Deutch's goal of getting the U.S. Government to take action regarding a problematic drywall situation.
The Senate version we are considering today retains significant portions of the House language, so I intend to vote in favor of what the Senate has sent back to us. Just like the previously approved House version, this Senate version requires that all new drywall be marked with a permanent label that can be used to identify who manufactured a particular sheet of drywall and when it was manufactured.
A major problem many homeowners experienced was that they didn't know who made the drywall in their homes or when it was made. The labeling requirement should make it easier to pin down exactly who is responsible for producing any given sheet of drywall.
In addition, just like the previously approved House version, the Senate version requires all drywall used in the United States to be subject to a sulfur content limit. After extensive investigation by the CPSC, sulfur was the element found to be associated with the awful odor and metal corrosion homeowners were experiencing.
The Senate version specifies the American Society for Testing and Metals, or ASTM, international standard for gypsum board labeling as the labeling standard that must be complied with. The House version did not pick a particular voluntary standard.
Instead, CPSC would have specified the industry-generated voluntary standard to be complied with or, failing that, write its own rule on the matter. The Senate version also specifically grants responsibility for the standard on sulfur content to an ASTM committee. Both of these changes are made because one trade association believed that, under the House version, the CPSC could rely on a voluntary standard that was not developed through a process with safeguards for due process, the airing of diverse views, and consensus decisionmaking. There's not one instance that anyone can point to where the CPSC has relied on a voluntary industry standard that was not produced through a process that involved due process, the airing of diverse views, and consensus decisionmaking.
In addition to referencing the ASTM voluntary standard-setting body twice, the Senate tweaked the future rulemaking section. The House granted CPSC authority to ``reduce'' the sulfur content limit or set limits regarding the composition or characteristics of drywall that are reasonably necessary to protect public health or safety. We granted this authority in case later down the road it becomes apparent that there are other problems associated with drywall that we have not yet identified. The Senate's version replaces the word ``reduce'' with ``modify,'' so the CPSC has the authority to modify the sulfur content limit. The word ``modify'' encompasses reducing the limit, so we are willing to live with this change.
I continue to support this bill despite these changes, because the time to act has long past. As far back as late 2008, consumers have complained about homes that smelled like rotten eggs, health concerns that included irritated and itchy eyes and skin, breathing problems, asthma attacks, persistent coughs, bloody and running noses, and recurring headaches. Complaints also included reports of blackened and corroded metal components in the home. The CPSC received nearly 4,000 such complaints from residents in 43 States who believed these conditions related to the presence of Chinese drywall in their homes. Most of these complaints were concentrated in the South, where there was a construction boom in 2006 and 2007 due to hurricanes in 2004 and 2005.
To help bring some relief to these homeowners and to reduce the chance of something like this ever happening again, this legislation does a few other things in addition to the labeling and sulfur content requirements:
It asks the Secretary of Commerce to engage the Chinese Government to prod those companies that exported problematic drywall to the United States--some of which are partly owned by the Chinese Government--to meet with U.S. officials about providing some sort of remedy to homeowners affected by this defective product;
The bill also asks the Secretary of Commerce to engage the Chinese Government to try to get the government to direct these companies to submit to the jurisdiction of our courts and comply with judgments that have been entered against them;
It also calls on the CPSC to revise guidance it published on the removal of
problematic drywall from homes to specify that this drywall should not be reused or put back into the drywall production stream. Once this drywall is removed from one home, we need to make sure it does not end up in another.
Despite issues with why H.R. 4212 is back here on the House floor, the Democratic leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, and I along with them, support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
