It has come to my attention that, in March of this year, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) introduced the above-referenced legislation (also known as "the Melina Bill"), which as of this date has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity (to track the bill's status, go here).
The Library of Congress' website on legislation, "Thomas- Legislative Information on the Internet", provides the following summary of what the bill, if enacted, would do:
"United States Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act of 2005 or the Melina Bill - Directs: (1) the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to jointly study the health effects of indoor mold growth and toxic mold; (2) EPA to promulgate standards for preventing, detecting, and remediating indoor mold growth; and (3) EPA, NIH, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to sponsor related public education programs.
Directs: (1) rental property lessors to conduct annual indoor mold inspections and notify the occupants of such results; and (2) HUD and EPA to promulgate mold hazard disclosure regulations.
Directs the Secretary of HUD to: (1) establish, with respect to indoor mold in public housing, inspection requirements for existing housing and construction standards for new housing; and (2) establish model construction standards and techniques for mold prevention in new buildings.
Establishes an indoor/toxic mold inspection requirement with respect to federally made or insured mortgages.
Amends the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 to provide for industry standards development for building products that are designed to retard mold development.
Directs EPA to make grants to States and local governments for mold growth remediation efforts in buildings owned or leased by such governments, including schools and multifamily dwellings.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an annual tax credit for 60 percent of non-reimbursed mold inspection and remediation expenses ($50,000 annual maximum) paid or incurred by a taxpayer.
Requires the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to: (1) establish a toxic mold insurance program, with priority for one-to-four-family residential properties; and (2) establish in the Treasury a National Toxic Mold Hazard Insurance Fund.
Authorizes the Director to assist qualifying insurers to form a federally-assisted toxic mold hazard insurance pool. Provides for Federal operation of such program under specified circumstances.
Authorizes State waiver of income, resource, and other Medicaid requirements for an individual whose health has been adversely affected by toxic mold exposure, and who lacks adequate medical insurance coverage."
Rep. Conyers is understandably affected by the fact that the daughter of one of his employees has apparently taken ill after exposure to mold (hence the nickname "the Melina Bill"). However, even assuming that certain types of mold can be health hazards, nonetheless the problem of mold exposure varies significantly across the United States, depending on region. The damp climates of the Northeast and Midwest call for different considerations regarding mold than do the relatively dry climates of Southern California and Arizona.
Thus, do we really need to attempt to expand federal regulation further over what is likely a problem with regional variations? Is there any reason to believe that the States should not be left to fashion their own specific responses to the particular and varied circumstances faced by each jurisdiction?
For example, H.R. 1269, if enacted, would as summarized above require landlords to perform annual mold inspections. While in some States, depending on climate, such a requirement may make sense, in other States less frequent inspections may be adequate. Moreover, although perhaps not fashionable to ask anymore, since this is a legal Blog, one must ask: what does mold in, say, an apartment building have to do with interstate commerce (which would have to be the basis for federal jurisdiction over a local health problem)?
Rep. Conyers' H.R. 1269 is well motivated. But for both practical and legal reasons, the feds should stay out of this one.
By the way, if you would like to get Rep. Conyers' side of the argument, you can do so at his website. Please note that the website has a typographical error, labeling the bill as "H.R. 1268" when the actual bill is H.R. 1269.
