中国含硫石膏板惹祸，美国国会遇立法难题

    要消除毒石膏板的危害，就必须彻底拆除这些房屋的内墙进行重建，由此产生的成本往往达到六位数。而这还是建立在正确实施翻修工作的基础之上：有些营建商和投资人不讲诚信，他们在草草翻修之后就会设法把问题房屋卖给那些没有戒心的买家。目前没有什么披露方面的规定能防止这种做法。

    以美国消费品安全委员会（Consumer Product Safety Commission）为首的联邦政府机构对毒石膏板进行了调查，但这些部门一直没有动用它们原本可以掌握的权力来帮助受害者，同时打击应为此负责的企业。它们也没有解答最基本的问题，比如造成石膏板释放含硫气体的原因或者含硫气体对人体健康有多大影响。同时，该委员会发现自己力量不足，而且也无权起诉隔海相望的中方企业，也无法迫使它们召回产品。

    实际上，如果毒石膏板受害者希望诉诸法律，由于牵涉到外国公司，特别是中国公司，情况就会变得复杂起来。新奥尔良联邦法院已经受理了数千起相关诉讼。但起诉至今已过去近四年时间，中方企业几乎没有显露出一点儿配合的意向，甚至裁定它们败诉的判决书都没人接收。【唯一的例外是，德国综合型企业可耐福集团（Knauf Group）的中国子公司同意为受影响房屋的翻修提供资金。】

    中国公司规避美国司法体系的能力并不是没有引起《石膏板安全法案》起草者的注意。他们在法案中提出，“国会感觉”美国商务部应坚持要求中国政府“指导那些生产和出口问题石膏板的中方企业接受美国联邦法院的管辖，同时遵照美国联邦法院的判决行事，即受到问题石膏板影响的业主胜诉。”

    但“国会感觉”这样的措辞没有任何法律效力。同时，迄今为止石膏板问题并没有给中国政府带来沉重的外交压力，因此也没什么迹象表明中国政府将改变态度。

    《石膏板安全法案》的要求一降再降。去年，在弗吉尼亚海滩地区选民的敦促之下，弗吉尼亚州共和党众议员斯科特•里格尔首次提出这项法案，当时的内容还比较犀利。弗吉尼亚海滩地区多数问题住宅都使用了中国国营企业——泰山石膏股份有限公司（Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.）生产的问题石膏板。

    虽然在对中国政府施压方面，里格尔也采用了“国会感觉”这样的措辞，但他的提案目的很明确，那就是把购买、销售和使用中国问题石膏板定性为违法活动。他在提案中要求“按照《联邦危险物品管理法》（Federal Hazardous Substances Act）的规定，将问题石膏板定为禁用危险品”，同时按照《消费品安全法》（Consumer Product Safety Act）的规定将其定为“紧急危险”品。

    但这些内容几乎立刻遭到削弱。

    通过众议院能源与商业委员会（Energy and Commerce Committee）审核后，这项法案的要求已经变成石膏板要带有更容易辨认的标识以及含硫量达到一定标准。它甚至还允许消费品安全委员会采纳石膏板行业自行制定的标准，而不是由该委员会来设定标准。国会议员们都知道，能源与商业委员会一向反对出台新的环保规定。

    Fixing a tainted home requires essentially gutting the house down to the studs and rebuilding, frequently at a cost upwards of six figures. And that's assuming a remediation job is done right: builders and investors with less-than-honorable intentions have engaged in dubious and incomplete fixes, then tried to sell off the houses to unsuspecting buyers. No disclosures are currently required to help prevent those practices.

    The federal government's investigation into tainted drywall, headed by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, never used powers it could have pursued to help victims and crack down on the companies responsible, nor did it answer fundamental questions such as what caused the sulfur emissions in the first place or how extensive the health effects could be. Meanwhile, the CPSC found itself outmatched and without strong statutory authority to pursue companies overseas in China, or attempt to force a recall.

    Indeed, the fact that foreign corporations are involved – particularly Chinese– has complicated any efforts by those harmed by the contaminated drywall to pursue legal action. Thousands of lawsuits have been combined in a New Orleans federal court, but nearly four years after the litigation began, the Chinese manufacturers have shown little interest in cooperating. Even judgments against them have gone uncollected. (The one exception is the Chinese subsidiary of German conglomerate Knauf Group, which has agreed to help fund repairs of its affected homes).

    The ability of Chinese companies to skirt the U.S. court system did not go unnoticed by lawmakers who crafted the new Drywall Safety Act. They included that it was the "sense of Congress" that the Secretary of Commerce should insist the Chinese government "direct the companies that manufactured and exported problematic drywall to submit to jurisdiction in United States Federal Courts and comply with any decisions issued by the Courts for homeowners with problematic drywall."

    However, the "sense of Congress" language carries no legal weight, and there is little to indicate the Chinese government will change its stance absent strong diplomatic pressure, which thus far has never been applied regarding the drywall.

    The Drywall Safety Act always had more limited intentions. It started out with more teeth when first introduced last year by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), at the urging of his affected constituents in Virginia Beach. Most tainted homes in the region were built with bad drywall from Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. – a manufacturer controlled by the Chinese-government itself.

    While Rigell included a similarly symbolic "sense of Congress" about pressuring the Chinese government, his bill aimed to clearly make the buying, selling and using of contaminated Chinese drywall illegal. It called for it to be "treated as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act" and as "an imminent hazard" under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

    However, almost immediately the bill found itself being weakened.

    By the time it got through the House Energy and Commerce Committee – a panel known on Capitol Hill for opposing new environmental regulations – the legislation had been reduced to only calling for better identifying marks on drywall, and for a standard on "sulfur content." It further allowed the CPSC to simply defer to an industry-developed voluntary standard, rather than instituting its own rules.