PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 8, 2009
Chinese Drywall Homeowners Assistance Act - Permits the use of specified community development block grant (CDBG) funds under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which have been given to the Road Home Program created by the Louisiana Recovery Authority, to provide any Louisiana resident, whether a participant or nonparticipant in the Road Home Program, with monetary assistance necessary to repair or replace tainted drywall that: (1) was manufactured in the People's Republic of China; (2) was imported into the United States between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2008; and (3) contains elevated levels of sulphur or strontium.
Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to permit any state or local government receiving such CDBG funds to use them to provide homeowners with monetary assistance to repair or replace such tainted drywall.
People & committees
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2850 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2850 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2850 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2850 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.