[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PUBLIC SALE OF HURRICANE KATRINA/RITA FEMA TRAILERS: ARE THEY SAFE
OR ENVIRONMENTAL TIME BOMBS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-114
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-569 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Vice Chair Ranking Member
JOHN SARBANES, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BART GORDON, Tennessee JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
BART STUPAK, Michigan MARY BONO MACK, California
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 7
Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 8
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Iowa, opening statement..................................... 8
Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, opening statement................................ 10
Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, opening statement........................... 11
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, opening statement........................................ 15
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 15
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 16
Witnesses
David Garratt, Associate Administrator, FEMA Mission Support
Bureau, Department of Homeland Security........................ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 21
James J. Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Steven Kempf, Acting Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service,
General Services Administration................................ 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Gabe Chasnoff, Director and Producer, Renaissance Village........ 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Corey Hebert, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Recovery School
District, Louisiana Department of Education.................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Curtis Howard, President, National Association of State Agencies
for Surplus Property........................................... 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
THE PUBLIC SALE OF HURRICANE KATRINA/RITA FEMA TRAILERS: ARE THEY SAFE
OR ENVIRONMENTAL TIME BOMBS?
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby Rush
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Sarbanes, Sutton,
Stupak, Green, Barrow, Braley, Waxman (ex officio), Whitfield,
Stearns, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, and Barton (ex officio).
Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Robin
Appleberry, Counsel; Timothy Robinson, Counsel; Felipe Mendoza,
Counsel; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Daniel Hekier, Intern;
Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Jerry Couri, Minority
Counsel; Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst; Shannon
Weinberg, Minority Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will now come to order. Today's
subcommittee hearing is on the subject of the public sales of
Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA trailers: are they safe or
environmental time bombs? And the chairman wants to welcome all
those who are participants in the hearing. And now the chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening
statement. Again, I want to welcome each one of the witnesses,
and I want to thank you for appearing before the subcommittee
today. At this hearing we will discuss the public sale of more
than 100,000 travel trailers and homes by the General Services
Administration. For these transactions, the GSA served as the
sales agent of FEMA.
And, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't know more than what
I just said, most of you would probably say, well, that sounds
good. That is an awfully lot of trailers, and the government is
selling off a lot of property. Maybe I should run down to the
courthouse or hop online to take advantage of a deal like that.
But these are not just any ordinary trailers. They are the very
same trailers that FEMA purchased and provisioned as emergency
housing for hundreds of thousands of displaced Gulf Coast
residents.
Unbelievably, these are the same trailers that made
thousands of people ill, some very severely, from exposure to
formaldehyde gases and vapors. Young children, elderly people
and those with serious respiratory conditions, ranging from
asthma to bronchitis, inhaled these vapors over a continuous
period of time. I don't think I am the only one that is left
scratching his head at this outcome. My first reaction was to
fire off a letter to FEMA and GSA asking them a range of
questions from what steps they had to take before deciding to
sell the trailers, how did they notify buyers that these
trailers could be contaminated by excessive formaldehyde and
whether some newly proposed standards may have resulted in
lowering formaldehyde exposure.
And I want to take time to thank GSA and FEMA for promptly
responding and explaining the courses of action they took
before making their decision to go forward with the sale of the
trailers. But let me state for the record that I would have
liked to have seen the government commit to more testing of
these trailers before bringing them to sale and to come up with
some better safeguards than was present on the warning stickers
and certification. We need to have many more courses of action
and more firm in our actions and activities to advise the
public and to protect the public. I genuinely want our
discussion to shed more light on some of the other options for
disposing of the surplus trailers that actually came up for
discussion and what other options that would have kept down
FEMA's costs and other options that may have come up out of
other discussions.
Has it been so long since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita took
place that we have forgotten the painful lessons that these
epic disasters taught our nation? It won't be until this coming
August that we will get to the fifth-year anniversary of those
tragic years. It is my sincere hope that this hearing will help
us to review what was learned from that experience so as not to
repeat some of our failures. And I want to say to those valiant
and gallant workers, government workers, who continually put
themselves on the front line as it relates to our nation's
disasters. I want to commend each and every one of them. And I
just think we can do a better job and make sure we do finer
work and we are more diligent and more proactive and open
ourselves up for more discussion.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having
this hearing today, and we are delighted that representatives
of FEMA, the GSA, and EPA are with us on this first panel this
morning. I read an article that the federal government spent
$2.7 billion to buy these trailers and mobile homes and spent
an additional $220 million to store them to provide some relief
for those victims of Katrina. And I think this hearing can be
quite helpful today because there are so many questions that
might be beneficial to us to have answered as we experience
disasters in the future. For example, were there alternatives
available to provide housing other than buying these trailers
with formaldehyde in them?
What options were available by the Administration in trying
to decide what to do with these trailers? Was it required that
they be so--there was a Washington Post article that said they
should have been destroyed, and just how serious was this
health issue? This committee certainly has an obligation and
responsibility to protect consumers, and I think even more so
when the federal government takes an action and people who are
the victims of Katrina really were not out purchasing a
product, they were taking what was given to them because they
had no other alternatives. I did also read an article where CMS
released a study regarding children, I think 6 to 12, in
Mississippi, some of who lived in these trailers and some who
did not, and basically the conclusion was that there was not
any significant difference in the health of those children. So
I am hoping that this committee and this panel and the second
panel can help us address a lot of these issues and have a
better understanding of it, and hopefully help us to move
forward in the future to maybe react in a more responsible and
more efficient way that is better for the victims of these
kinds of disasters. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you calling this hearing to examine the decision to sell the
American public travel trailers that could have elevated levels
of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a harmful substance. It is a
dangerous substance. It is a carcinogen, and it can cause
cancer. We should minimize the exposure by people to it but we
shouldn't minimize the dangers of the exposure to it. Some of
us are familiar with these trailers. When I was chairman of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I called a hearing
that exposed that dangerous level of formaldehyde in some of
these trailers, and not just that but the shameful failure of
FEMA to protect the families that were living in these
trailers.
Our investigation revealed that after hearing reports of
high formaldehyde levels, FEMA field staff called Washington
and said you have got to test these trailers so that the
dangerous trailers could be identified and the families that
were living in them could be protected. But FEMA headquarters
ignored the dangers from the formaldehyde. Their response was
that if FEMA tested the trailers and found hazards FEMA would
``own the problem.'' That is what they said, own the problem,
and therefore they did nothing.
The ultimate result was a serious health risk for families
displaced by Hurricane Katrina and a costly bill for taxpayers.
After our hearings exposed FEMA's conduct, the agency was
finally forced to act. FEMA paid $2 billion for trailers that
have now been sold for pennies on the dollar. I fully support
Chairman Rush's effort to understand the story behind the sale
of these trailers to the public. I hope today's hearing will
reveal that the Obama Administration has learned from the
mistakes of the previous Administration. If these trailers are
going to be sold, it is essential that there are ample
safeguards to prevent any risk to the people who end up buying
these trailers.
Today's hearing will also shine a light on the long-time
deficiencies of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This is an
outdated statute that is badly in need of reform, and I know
this subcommittee is going to be looking at that issue later
this year. As we will hear today, if EPA had the clear and
comprehensive authority that it needs to access and restrict
dangerous chemicals, it could have taken action on formaldehyde
years ago, and if EPA had set a standard for formaldehyde
emissions from plywood and composite wood products we might not
have had the problem in the first place. So EPA did not act to
set a standard for formaldehyde. FEMA did not act to test the
trailers to see if the formaldehyde levels were high enough
that they were causing a threat to public health.
The government has got to do its job, not ignore the
problems for fear that we will own them because our job is to
protect the American people. The victims of Hurricane Katrina
had no choice. They were given these trailers in which to live.
They were grateful to have a place to live temporarily, but we
should never have subjected them to this exposure and we should
never minimize the harm we subjected them to. I believe that we
will find that there was harm to people and that is a harm that
could have been averted, and we want to make sure that it
doesn't occur in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The chairman thanks the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Waxman. The chair now recognizes for 2 minutes,
Mr. Latta, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Whitfield, I appreciate this being my first day on the
subcommittee. I look forward to working with you all in the
future.
Mr. Rush. Will you yield just one second? I really want to
take this opportunity to welcome you to this subcommittee. We
are a good subcommittee. We work very well together, and we
look forward to working very closely with you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. And not to reiterate everything that has already been
said, but I look forward to the testimony today on purchase of
the trailers and also the subsequent sale of these trailers.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Barrow for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many of the victims trusted the
government to provide temporary housing that was safe to live
in. We have since found out that many of these citizens were
exposed to extremely high levels of formaldehyde in these
trailers. As a result of that exposure, hundreds of individuals
continue to suffer negative health effects ranging from
respiratory irritation to cancer. I have introduced legislation
in this Congress, H.R. 1661, the Travel Trailer Residents
Health Registry Act, that will begin the process of righting
this wrong.
My bill will establish and maintain a health registry for
folks who are exposed to formaldehyde in one of these
government-provided trailers. It will provide health
examinations, consultations, and mental health counseling free
of charge to individuals facing illness from FEMA trailers and
will conduct a study of the long-term health effects of
exposure to formaldehyde in the trailers. The purpose of
today's hearing is to look at the public sale of Hurricane
Katrina and Rita FEMA trailers.
Once again, the government will be providing temporary
housing to yet another generation of occupants. Knowing what we
already know about the effects have had on those who already
lived in them, I don't see how we can justify the risk of
further government-sanctioned exposure. We have not yet
accepted responsibility for the harm done to those who have
been injured by substandard temporary housing. Until we do, I
am afraid these sales may only add to the casualty lists. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia,
Dr. Gingrey, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling
today's hearing on the sale of the FEMA trailers used in the
recovery efforts of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. With a number
of concerns raised with formaldehyde exposure in the Gulf Coast
region resulting from the use of these trailers, I believe it
is important that this subcommittee take a closer look at the
issue, and of course that is what we are doing. As required by
law, the federal government is required to sell or dispose of
equipment that is no longer being used. Accordingly, the GSA,
General Services Administration, helped facilitate the sale of
over 102,000 trailers through an auction that was conducted in
January, this year, that brought in approximately $139 million.
Overall, as the chairman said just a minute ago in his
remarks, that is pennies on the dollar, I think a nickel on the
dollar of what we paid for these trailers. Although this sale
of government equipment follows prescribed procedures, it also
comes with additional concerns as expressed by my friend from
Georgia, Mr. Barrow. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that FEMA
placed a clearly visible decal on the door or window of each of
these trailers that simply states not to be used for a house.
And, additionally, I appreciate that the purchasers are
required to sign a buyer's certificate denoting that the
trailers cannot be used for housing or resold to be used as
housing.
Although the buyers of these trailers are being required to
sign these certificates, there will always be, and we know
this, bad actors in the system that will resell these trailers
for housing purposes. Based on the levels of formaldehyde that
potentially exists in the trailers, we need to do our best to
prevent them from being resold for permanent type housing, day
in and day out kind of living. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we
are holding the hearing today. I wish we could also be hearing
some testimony--I notice that HUD is not on either panel. HUD
is the only federal agency that regulates the use of
formaldehyde. I believe the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's input and testimony on this matter would be
beneficial to the subcommittee, and as we move forward on this
issue, I hope that we will seek their input.
The existence of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers is something
that has already been scrutinized by a number of congressional
committees and now the public sale of these same trailers
allows us to re-examine this important issue. I look forward to
hearing the testimony from today's panels, the first set and
second, and asking some pertinent questions and getting some
good answers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. Braley, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Waxman
mentioned the July 19, 2007, hearing of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, which I served on at that time,
and as a member of that committee, I hear testimony from
displaced Gulf Coast hurricane victims who testified that the
trailers provided by FEMA had high levels of formaldehyde,
which caused them to experience nosebleeds, watery eyes,
respiratory problems, and flu-like symptoms. They also
testified that their adverse health effects were common for
families living in FEMA-provided trailers in the Gulf Coast. At
the time of that hearing, I had no idea how important that
would be to residents of my district in the northeast part of
Iowa because 1 year later in the spring of 2008 my district was
hit by the most powerful tornado in the United States followed
10 days later by the worse flooding in our state's history.
As part of the relief effort, FEMA issued trailers to Iowa
flood victims. In July of 2008, and this is a photograph of
some of those remaining trailers, which are currently stored
about 10 miles from where I live in the small town of Dike,
Iowa. As part of that relief, it was discovered in July of 2008
that more than 100 FEMA-provided trailers in Iowa were infected
with mold. It is very disturbing that the mold in those
trailers was not discovered before they were delivered to
disaster victims at their designated locations, and it
concerned the Iowans living in those trailers for a period of
time before the mold was even discovered.
In October of 2008, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa television
station, KGAN, reported that tests of 20 trailers issued by
FEMA to flood victims in Iowa found they all exceeded FEMA's
own standards for safe levels of formaldehyde. At the time,
more than 60 inhabited FEMA trailers were located in my
district, and this was after we had held the hearing in
Oversight and Government Reform. With such a dismal record of
providing housing units with high levels of formaldehyde and
mold, FEMA should be going above and beyond expectations to
prove and ensure that these trailers are safe. It is disturbing
to me personally and unacceptable that temporary housing
provided by the agency responsible for helping people in times
of emergency would make them ill.
It is equally disturbing that formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products are not currently regulated by the
federal government. In November of 2007, a federal court order
suspended all sales of FEMA trailers until January 2, 2010.
When that court order expired, FEMA sold about 93,000 travel
trailers and 9,300 mobile homes to both purchasers. And despite
the warnings that my colleague from Georgia has mentioned, I
remain concerned that the safety of these units will not be a
subject of further scrutiny, and I am not sure the government
should be selling trailers to the public that they have
determined to pose risks to human health.
Last month we were supposed to mark up H.R. 4805, the
Formaldehyde Standards and Composite Wood Products Act in this
subcommittee, but it was pulled from the schedule at the last
minute. I was disappointed because that bill would be a good
step in the right direction to lower the adverse effects of
formaldehyde on human health. As we continue to address the
issue of formaldehyde, we should be considering not whether
that legislation goes too far but rather we should consider
whether it goes far enough in protecting human health because
in a hearing last month the consensus among the witnesses was
that the current standard for formaldehyde emissions for
manufactured homes is weak and must be updated.
It is not only important to the impact of hurricane victims
in the Gulf Coast as well as the flooding victims in Iowa and
other parts of the Midwest. It is important for the people of
this country as we move forward. And so I thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this important hearing today, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and Mr. Whitfield
for having this important hearing examining the sale of FEMA
trailers. I want to acknowledge some of our panelists who are
here today from Louisiana. First, Dr. Corey Hebert, a
pediatrician in New Orleans who serves as an assistant
professor at Tulane Medical School and is chief medical officer
at the Louisiana Recover School District. Dr. Hebert has
focused much needed attention on the effects of post-traumatic
stress disorder as it relates to Hurricane Katrina's effects on
people in our region, as well as on the potential hazards of
formaldehyde and FEMA-issued trailers. We also have Gabe
Chasnoff, the director and producer of Renaissance Village. Mr.
Chasnoff's documentary showed us life in a FEMA trailer camp
and the issues faced by those displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
Dr. Hebert and Mr. Chasnoff, it is good to have people from
Louisiana here testifying before our committee, and I thank you
for the work you do and what you are also doing for our
recovery. Mr. Chairman, those of us in South Louisiana are
unfortunately all too familiar with FEMA trailers and the
problems associated with them. As a result of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita our state saw hundreds of thousands of home
destroyed and people displaced. We also had over 200,000 mobile
homes, travel trailers, and other temporary housing units
shipped to our region. While these temporary units did help
meet the critical needs of housing following the 2005
hurricanes and provided many residents with short-term housing
options as they recovered from the storms, only later did we
find out about the health issues these trailers have caused.
FEMA originally spent approximately $2.7 billion on
temporary housing units only to have some of them go unused
because there was a surplus or because regulations prevented
them from being installed in certain areas. In 2006, we learned
that some of these trailers contained formaldehyde and had
exposed people to health risks associated with this chemical.
These revelations only added insult to injury for the hundreds
of thousands of people who had survived the storms. At the end
of 2007, the GAO found that ineffective oversight led to FEMA
paying an estimated $30 million in wasteful and improper or
potentially fraudulent payments for maintenance on trailers,
and now the storage of excess trailers is costing the taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the uniqueness of what we faced
after Katrina. Our nation had never faced a disaster of that
scope or complex. The federal government had never been faced
with providing housing for that many people, and FEMA did take
steps to address these challenges. But FEMA trailers provide
clear examples of the errors that were made after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and how taxpayer dollars were wasted. It is
for that reason that I have introduced and co-sponsored
legislation to improve disaster recovery and promote
responsible government spending for disasters.
Mr. Chairman, given the challenges we face, the issue of
FEMA trailers is one that we take very seriously in South
Louisiana. That is why I am pleased to see that our
subcommittee is focusing on these issues. Thank you, and I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Sarbanes, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing. My understanding is that the only agency that has
standards with respect to formaldehyde emissions is HUD but
that standard is itself very weak and needs to be strengthened
and the overall regulation of formaldehyde has to be improved,
but then even within that weak standard that HUD sets there is
a giant loophole with respect to the travel trailers because
they don't fit the definition that would be subject to the HUD
standards with respect to manufactured housing so the travel
trailers, which were used as what was anticipated to be
temporary housing but became more permanent for many people had
these terrible health effects.
And Mr. Braley and I and others participated in hearings on
Oversight and Government Reform that at this, so I appreciate
your bringing attention to this in terms of how the travel
trailers that were used at that time are now being disposed of
but also to get us to think going forward how we better
regulate the use of those kinds of trailers, and address
overall the formaldehyde emissions, so thank you for holding a
hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the full committee, my friend from Texas, Mr. Barton, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice you have
moved your vehicle. You have got a different parking place now,
so it is in running condition.
Mr. Rush. You can move it now. It will move.
Mr. Barton. Have you tested it for formaldehyde, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Rush. Yes, it has. It has been tested for it. Thank
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Our chairman has a sports car that is--it is
not an antique but it is older than most of the vehicles and it
would be a great auction item because if it is in running
condition. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. We have all heard the joke about would you buy a used
car from this person. Well, the question is would you buy a
used trailer from Uncle Sam? That is the purpose of today's
hearing. With all good intentions, the federal government after
Katrina and Rita purchased over 120,000 trailers for people to
temporarily live in the aftermath of those two hurricanes. I
think it is good public policy when the need passes to auction
them off into the private marketplace, so I don't have a basic
problem with what has been attempted to have been done.
Unfortunately, we have found out in the climate in the Gulf
Coast, some of these trailers if left unoccupied and closed up,
the humidity and the heat concentration inside the trailer
apparently releases formaldehyde in concentrations that can be
unhealthy. There is a bigger question and the chairman of the
subcommittee is considering legislation on what to do about the
formaldehyde in the manufactured housing, but the purpose of
this hearing is to determine exactly what FEMA and other
environmental agencies knew and when they knew it, and, what,
if anything, can be done in terms of the sales of these
trailers.
I do not represent Louisiana, obviously, or Mississippi. I
do represent Texas, and part of my district was hit by
Hurricane Rita, so this is something that is of more than
passing interest to me. I hope we have a productive hearing,
Mr. Chairman, and I hope that we all engage in it in a positive
way to get real answers so that we can help determine what the
appropriate solution is to this problem. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chairman thanks the gentleman. The chair now
recognizes the gentle lady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding today's
important hearing on the public sales of Hurricane Katrina and
Rita FEMA trailers. Our hearts go out to the families who were
displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Rita nearly 5 years ago.
After losing their homes, their personal belongings, and,
unfortunately, loved ones, affected citizens were moved into
trailers purchased by FEMA. To add insult to injury, some
people began experiencing breathing difficulties, persistent
headaches, and nosebleeds caused by high levels of
formaldehyde. Formaldehyde, considered to be a human
carcinogen. This shocked and horrified the public, and FEMA
began relocating residents. Government agencies suggested that
families who live in FEMA-supplied travel trailers and mobile
homes should spend as much time outdoors in the fresh air as
possible.
FEMA then worked with GSA to sell large lots of the
trailers, the very trailers residents were advised to stop
living in or to stay out of as much as possible. This chain of
events is alarming, and we must ensure that the correct lessons
are learned so that this troubling piece of American history is
never repeated. I am interested to hear from today's witnesses
how putting a disclaimer regarding the unsafe levels of
formaldehyde complies with the GSA regulations. GSA is
prohibited from selling property that is dangerous to public
health or safety without first rendering such property
innocuous or providing for adequate safeguards as part of the
exchange or sale.
In addition, I am proud to co-sponsor the formaldehyde
standards for composite wood production introduced by
Representative Matsui. That bill will protect the health of
American families from high uses of formaldehyde and common
household products like flooring and paneling regardless of
where it is made. And I have introduced the Board of
Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010 to protect
American consumers and businesses from defective products
manufactured abroad. The American people deserve and demand
that the products they are sold or in this case of products
purchased by their government as part of a response to a
national disaster are safe for themselves and their families.
Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Stearns, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
important hearing. FEMA was tasked, as we all know, with
providing emergency housing in the form of mobile homes and
travel trailers to almost 150,000 residents of Mississippi,
Alabama, and, of course, Louisiana when the region was
devastated by back-to-back hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, in the
summer of 2005. You know, 2006 heard claims from some of the
occupants of the travel trailers about poor indoor air quality
and concerned about elevated formaldehyde levels. But then as a
result FEMA asked the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry to evaluate. They just asked them to evaluate the air
quality and they took some samples of the unoccupied trailers
that FEMA were still storing and subsequently asked the Center
for Disease Control to study the air quality for the occupied
units.
Their study did reveal high levels of formaldehyde while
the CDC study revealed that the emission rates in occupied
trailers were much lower. I think that is important to also
bring out. Our subcommittee should note that according to the
ATSDR there is a correlation between temperature and
formaldehyde levels with lower temperatures and proper
ventilation resulting in lower concentrations and higher
temperatures and no ventilation resulting in higher levels. So
it is clear to me that this is what happened.
Nonetheless, the sale of the FEMA trailers was suspended in
2007 to rightfully ensure the protection of consumers, and I
think that is justified and I am glad we are doing that.
However, this federal court order on the sale of FEMA travel
trailers expires the 1st of January of this year. It is,
therefore, prudent of us to examine today, Mr. Chairman,
whether the sale of these trailers is truly safe. If they pose
a real health risk to consumers or perhaps if someone buys this
travel trailer, can he or she clean it up on their own. A
travel trailer can be sold at a discount and possibly not
create a problem. So this is a timely hearing, Mr. Chairman,
and I appreciate your leadership in bringing it forward. Thank
you.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing
on the sale of the FEMA trailers that received so much public
attention and scrutiny when it began appearing in the aftermath
of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I know this hearing is about
the sale of the trailers, but I also would like to raise the
direct problems that the high rise of formaldehyde in trailers
and mobile homes caused in our district in the area devastated
by Hurricane Ike. FEMA spent nearly $3 billion adding trailers
and mobile homes to their inventory in 2005 after these two
hurricanes, but less than a year later the reports of excess
levels of formaldehyde began causing serious concerns and FEMA
stopped distributing the trailers. One of the lasting impacts
of oversight on FEMA's part that surfaced in the aftermath of
Hurricane Ike, which hit the Texas upper Gulf Coast in
September, 2008 and devastated the district I represent, was
that FEMA was not able to provide temporary mobile housing in a
timely manner after the hurricane.
It was over a month after Ike hit that trailers started
arriving for Ike victims, and it took significant involvement
from local officials in the states to ensure these trailers and
mobile homes met safe formaldehyde levels. I would like to make
this last point. While our district has significantly
recovered, there are still folks living in trailers in some of
the hardest hit areas like Galveston, Texas along the coast.
These people need to have options to get out of those trailers
before the next hurricane season starts, June 1, and I hope
that FEMA is working with them to find alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, the specific issue at hand, and I am glad we
are looking at the issue of the sale of these trailers procured
in 2005, the potential for high levels of formaldehyde, mold,
mildew, and other health hazards is too great, and I am
concerned FEMA and GSA move forward too quickly without proper
assurances these trailers would not be put to uses that
endanger the public. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today on what precautions were taken and what
assurances they can provide that these trailers will not be
used in such ways that will jeopardize human health including
human habitation. It is one thing to use a construction
trailer, but it is one thing to spend a night in a trailer that
has problems with formaldehyde, mold, and mildew. And again,
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield
back my time.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks all the members for their
opening statements. Now we will move to the regular order and
here we will invite our panelists to give opening statements.
But before they give their opening statements, let me introduce
them and also swear them in. On my left is Mr. David Garratt.
Mr. Garratt is the Associate Administrator for FEMA Mission
Support Bureau, Department of Homeland Security. Seated next to
Mr. Garratt is Mr. James J. Jones, the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances for the Environmental Protection Agency. And next to
Mr. Jones is Mr. Steven Kempf. Mr. Kempf is the Acting
Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service for the General
Services Administration. Again, I want to thank each and every
one of your gentlemen for appearing before this subcommittee.
And it is the practice of this subcommittee to swear in
witnesses, so I would ask if you would please stand and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Rush. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses
have responded in the affirmative. And let me recognize now for
opening statement for 5 minutes Mr. Garratt, and then we will
proceed in that order.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID GARRATT, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEMA
MISSION SUPPORT BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JAMES
J. JONES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY; STEVEN KEMPF, ACTING COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL ACQUISITION
SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
TESTIMONY OF DAVID GARRATT
Mr. Garratt. Thank you, and, good morning, Chairman Rush,
Ranking Member Whitfield, and other distinguished members of
the subcommittee. My name is David Garratt. I am the Associate
Administrator for Mission Support within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security.
On behalf of the agency and the department, I appreciate the
opportunity to discus show FEMA is producing, employing, and
disposing of temporary housing units. First, it may be helpful
to establish some common frames in terms of reference and
provide a little context. Within the FEMA vernacular, a
temporary housing unit is a manufactured home, recreational
vehicle, or other readily fabricated dwelling. These dwellings
include mobile homes, park models, travel trailers, and various
types of alternative housing. While all temporary housing units
are distinguished by their ability to be delivered, installed,
and inhabited within a relatively short time frame, not all
temporary housing units are designed to be inhabited for
lengthy periods of time.
FEMA provides temporary housing units under our Individual
Assistance program which such assistance has been specifically
requested by a governor and authorized by the President as part
of a major disaster or emergency declaration. Whenever
Individual Assistance is authorized, the program is 100 percent
federally funded. Generally, FEMA provides temporary housing
units when sufficient fair market rental units are not
available within an affected area. Temporary housing units can
be provided in two types of settings, on private property or in
community sites.
Installing temporary housing units on private property is
preferred. It keeps disaster survivors on their own property,
providing proximity to the damaged homes that they wish to
repair. It also allows adults to remain near their places of
employment and children near their schools. Further, it helps
physically and financially stabilize traumatized neighborhoods
and contributes to faster recovery. However, because most
private sites are relatively small, they often cannot
accommodate mobile homes, which are designed for long-term
habitation. FEMA will only install smaller travel trailers on
private sites if the damaged structure can be repaired to the
point of re-habitation within six months.
Community sites are employed when private site installation
is not available to disaster survivors, such as when large
numbers of apartment renters are displaced and insufficient
fair market rental resources are available. In such cases, FEMA
must obtain access to land capable of supporting multiple
mobile homes and/or park models or other forms of alternative
temporary housing. If existing sites are not available, FEMA
may build a community site from scratch, to include providing
the supporting utility infrastructure. FEMA will not install
travel trailers in community sites.
Prior to and during the response to Hurricane Katrina, FEMA
procured temporary housing units that were manufactured to
prevailing industry standards. While mobile home instruction
was and is regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, recreational vehicles, such as park models and
travel trailers, are not. On February 14, 2008, the Centers for
Disease Control issued its interim report that suggested many
of the Katrina-era purchased units tested possessed higher than
typical indoor background formaldehyde levels. Though no
federal guidelines existed for residential air quality levels,
FEMA invoked construction specifications for all new forms or
manufactured housing that dramatically reduced formaldehyde
levels to well below standard commercially produced units.
FEMA's new requirements were rigorous, so rigorous, in fact,
that manufacturers were uncertain whether these standards could
be met. Through our persistence, we successfully obtained units
built to these exacting and unprecedented standards.
All temporary housing units currently being purchased by
FEMA must meet extremely rigorous air quality specifications.
FEMA requires that every unit must test below 0.016 per
million, which is lower than the residential formaldehyde
emission levels established by any of the 50 states. Further,
FEMA requires that any recreational vehicles that it purchases
contain air ventilation systems that are comparable to a mobile
home, further contributing to a sustained reduction in
formaldehyde levels. These new FEMA units continue to surpass
any commercially available manufactured housing unit in air
quality.
Although all the temporary housing units that FEMA is now
commissioning for production and providing to disaster
survivors meets FEMA's stringent air quality specifications,
FEMA has also been storing at multiple sites across the country
and at considerable costs tens of thousands of used legacy
units left over from the Katrina era. These legacy units
include mobile homes, park models, and travel trailers. FEMA
strives to be a fully accountable steward of government
resources and ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly.
Accordingly, following the removal of court-ordered
restrictions on their disposition, FEMA began working to
responsibly dispose of these units through the General Services
Administration sales program.
FEMA's ability to dispose of these units is dictated by the
Stafford Act, which authorizes FEMA to dispose of units in only
one of two ways, either by sale to anyone, including the
occupant, or by transfer, donation, or sale to a jurisdiction
or voluntary organization. However, the latter disposition
option can be employed only when the unit will be used to
provide housing to disaster survivors. FEMA and GSA implemented
rigorous measures to ensure that these units would not be used
as housing. As my GSA colleague will discuss, FEMA and GSA
placed restrictions on the use of the travel trailers as
housing and required that all buyers fully convey those usage
restrictions to subsequent buyers or recipients.
Buyers must certify that they understand that there may be
formaldehyde emissions and that travel trailers are commercial
recreational vehicles and are not intended to be used as
housing, and that subsequent owners must continue to similarly
inform subsequent buyers for the life of the unit. This
certification is a binding legal document. Finally, no aspect
of recovery is more critical to the timely and sustainable
revitalization of a disaster-impacted community than the return
of its citizens and workforce, and no aspect of recovery is
more critical to supporting the return than the availability of
housing, both permanent and temporary.
States have made it unequivocally clear that they want and
expect travel trailers to remain a part of our inventory
because in many cases a travel trailer is the only unit that
will fit on suburban private property. We have heeded that call
by partnering with the industry that manufactures these units,
leading the design and production of travel trailers that
achieve greatly improved air quality levels. We will continue
to work with our partners in and out of government to improve
temporary housing capabilities. Thank you. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garratt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chairman recognizes Mr. Jones for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. JONES
Mr. Jones. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today regarding EPA's efforts on formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is a widely-used chemical and may be found both
indoors and outdoors. It is used in building materials and
household products and can also be produced as a by-product of
combustion. In homes, the most significant current sources of
formaldehyde are likely to be pressed wood products using
adhesives that contain urea-formaldehyde resins.
Inhalation of formaldehyde can cause irritation of the
eyes, nose, throat, and skin, as well as inflammation and
damage to the upper respiratory tract, depending on both the
level and length of exposure. Additionally, there is some new
evidence that formaldehyde exposures may impact pulmonary
function and increase respiratory symptoms, asthma, and
allergic sensitization in children. There is evidence that some
people can develop sensitivity to formaldehyde. In 2005, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, concluded
that there is sufficient evidence in humans and sufficient
evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of
formaldehyde.
EPA is currently engaged in a reassessment of the potential
cancer and non-cancer risks of formaldehyde that will be
entered into EPA's Integrated Risk Information System or IRIS
program. As part of the IRIS reassessment process, EPA will be
reexamining its conclusions regarding the cancer and non-cancer
health effects of inhalation of formaldehyde. At this moment,
EPA is conducting an interagency science consultation on the
draft formaldehyde assessment. We anticipate releasing the
draft formaldehyde assessment for independent external peer
review and public review and comment in the near future. The
independent peer review will be conducted by an expert
scientific panel that has been convened by the National Academy
of Sciences.
The NAS peer review report is expected to be provided to
EPA in January or February of 2011. The recent focus on
formaldehyde in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention result in part from a March 2008 petition from 25
organizations and approximately 5,000 individuals to adopt the
California state regulation regarding emissions of formaldehyde
from three types of composite wood products. The petitioners
asked EPA to exercise its authority under TSCA section 6 to
adopt and apply nationally the California formaldehyde
emissions regulations for these composite wood products.
In response, EPA announced on June 24, 2008, EPA's plan to
issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to initiate a
proceeding to assist us in obtaining a better understanding of
the available control technologies and approaches, industry
practices, and the implementation of California's regulation.
The ANPR was issued on December 3, 2008, and describes EPA's
initial steps in that investigation. We currently anticipate
being able to make a determination on pursuing regulatory
actions in 2011. If EPS proposes new regulations at that time,
a final rule could be anticipated 1 to 3 years later. Restoring
confidence in our chemical management system is a top priority
for EPA and an environmental priority for the Obama
Administration. The Administration's principles for how TSCA
should be revised and modernized call for stronger and clearer
authority for EPA to collect and act upon critical data
regarding chemical risks.
Under a reformed TSCA, EPA should have the necessary
authority and tools, such as data call-in, to quickly and
efficiently require testing or obtain other information from
manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of
chemicals. EPA should have clear authority to establish safety
standards that are based on scientific risk assessment and to
take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the
safety standard. The recent introduction of TSCA reform
legislation in the Senate and release of a discussion draft in
the House are major steps forward in this effort to reform
TSCA. We look forward to working with Congress and the
subcommittee to reform TSCA in the near future. Thank you for
the opportunity to present EPA's views, and I am happy to
answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes Mr.
Kempf for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN KEMPF
Mr. Kempf. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing. My name is
Steven Kempf. I am the Acting Commissioner of the Federal
Acquisition Service within the General Services Administration.
GSA's mission is to use expertise to provide innovative
solutions for our customers in support of their missions, and
by doing so fostering an effective, sustainable, and
transparent government for the American people. GSA is
comprised of two services, the public building service, which
provides workplaces by constructing, managing, and preserving
government buildings, and by leasing and managing commercial
real estate. The Federal Acquisition Service or FAS offers
professional services, equipment, supplies, telecommunications,
fleet, travel services, purchase cards, and information
technology to all government agencies.
Specific to this hearing, FAS manages the federal program
for the disposal of personal property. This is operated by the
Office of Personal Property Management, part of our Office of
General Supplies and Services business portfolio. There is a
process by which GSA manages disposal or reuse of personal
property. Our first priority is to facilitate the transfer of
one agency's excess property to another federal agency. Our
second priority is the donation of surplus property to state
and local government agencies and various other eligible non-
profit organizations.
Any remaining property is then offered for sale to the
general public. In support of utilization, federal transfers,
and donations, GSA is a mandatory source, that is, statute and
regulation require agencies to report their excess property to
GSA for screening for transfer and donation. For sales
services, GSA is just one of several agencies approved and
authorized as sale centers. FAS' sales program is the most
comprehensive as it is the only sales center approved to
support any agency nationwide for any commodity and using any
method of sale. Sometimes agencies own property which they have
determined must be replaced. FAS facilities this replacement
under the Exchange Sale Authority.
In this case, proceeds from the sale are returned to the
owning agency to help offset the cost of the purchase of
replacement property. In working with FEMA, some travel
trailers and other models of temporary housing units, park
models, and manufactured housing were made available for
transfer and donation. Others were offered for sale under the
Exchange Sale Authority. At GSA most of the property we offer
for competitive sales to the general public is sold through GSA
auctions or internal auction sites. All GSA sales, whether on
the internet or live, are also listed on govsales.gov, the
federal asset sales central portal for all government sales.
GSA acted as the sales agent for FEMA while they retained
physical custody and ownership of these units. We conducted
these sales through GSA auctions selling travel trailers,
mobile home, and park models. We sold them as single units or
in large multiple lots, ranging from as few as 10 units to over
22,000 units in one lot. GSA provides full and complete
descriptions, including any known deficiencies if such
information is provided by the owning agency. With respect to
these trailers, there are no specific special requirements for
sale of temporary housing units. Federal regulations address
special requirements for disposal processing of specified
categories of items requiring special handling. FEMA did not
identify the temporary housing units as falling under any of
these identified categories such as hazardous materials, a
munitions item list, or an item containing asbestos. Therefore,
no special requirements were applicable to these sales. GSA
agreed with FEMA's conclusion.
The first temporary housing unit sales in significant
quantities post-Katrina began in 2006. After the health
concerns regarding the questionable formaldehyde levels were
made known to GSA, FAS developed a certification statement for
purchasers in coordination with FEMA, which included notices of
the potential formaldehyde and later added restrictions on the
use of the units for housing. The certification statement and
restriction for purchasers of travel trailers is a binding
document and is made in accordance with and subject to criminal
penalties in Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code, Crime and
Criminal Procedures. Prospective bidders were provided a link
in each sales listing where they were required to read and to
certify acceptance before being able to submit a bid.
On March 2 of this year, GSA also sent an e-mail to buyers
of travel trailers reminding them of that requirement of the
certification. GSA also referred all known violations to GSA's
Office of Inspector General for investigation. We recently
completed the sales of the remaining inventory held by FEMA. At
the end of January, the majority of the remaining units, a
total of 101,802 units, were sold in 11 lots in GSA auctions.
For the most part, all lots have been paid in full with removal
process well underway. There were 3 lots where the successful
bidder defaulted on the contract. One of those lots was
successfully re-offered for sale. One must again be re-offered,
and finally FEMA has elected not to offer the units at one of
the remaining sites. Instead, FEMA has determined that they are
excess property and they were offered for transfer to other
federal agencies or donation to state and local organizations.
Many of those units have now been transferred or donated.
Throughout this process, a total of 4,666 units have been
transferred to other agencies, and another 4,070 have been
donated to eligible organizations. I want to thank the
committee for this opportunity to speak to the honorable
members, and I am happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kempf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the gentleman. I want to begin
by asking Mr. Kempf, in your statement you refer to purchases
that are down from the original purchases and that they were
under a contract obligation. I think Mr. Garratt indicated they
were under a contract obligation that if they sold these
trailer homes to any other person then they could be
prosecuted. They would be in violation of the contract. Is that
correct? Did I understand you correct?
Mr. Garratt. I did say it was a binding, legal contract,
yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. And what are the prohibitions under that contract
for the purchaser?
Mr. Garratt. Essentially, the prohibitions are that they
agree not to use or to sell these units to be used as housing
and that if they do subsequently transfer or sell these units
to someone else that they must inform those individuals of
these prohibitions that it is not to be used as housing.
Mr. Rush. And if they do, they are subject to civil----
Mr. Garratt. Let me ask my colleague who wants to weigh in
on this, sir.
Mr. Kempf. I did want to also mention that they were also
required to identify that there may be potential hazards with
the formaldehyde as well.
Mr. Rush. So, in essence, you are telling them that the
federal government has sold it to them and they can't sell it
to someone else, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Kempf. They could sell it to someone else but they had
to convey to them the issues we had identified in the
certification that they were not to be used as housing units
and that there were potential issues with formaldehyde.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Kempf, what were the other options on the
table besides the sale of the trailer homes?
Mr. Kempf. GSA essentially implements working with our
customer the option that they had chosen. In this case, our
customer, FEMA, had decided to use the Sale Exchange, so we did
review the regulations. We did not find anything that would
stop us from doing the sale so we moved forward with the
auction.
Mr. Rush. And can you kind of give the subcommittee an idea
of the picture of the process? Can you describe step by step
what a person--conduct a sale for us. What would be some of the
steps that a person would go through in terms of a sale?
Mr. Kempf. When a customer does come to GSA and asks for a
sale under the Exchange Sale Program, we sit with the customer,
identify the kind of items that were going to be for sale, work
with them on the best approach to selling, whether that be a
live auction or we use our internet auctions. We then provide a
description as provided by our customer agency and then offer
the items for sale to the general public.
Mr. Rush. And a normal purchaser, are they a dealer or a
business, a reseller, or are these individuals, specifically
with these trailer homes, are they people who buy multiple
items from GSA or they buy multiple homes? Are they dealers?
Mr. Kempf. We sold the trailers any number of ways. We sold
them individually. We sold them in small lots. We sold them in
larger lots. The general public is allowed to purchase. I think
some of them were bought by individuals. Some of them were
bought by dealers. I think there was a range of individuals and
organizations that did purchase under the auctions that we
held.
Mr. Rush. Had you looked at in any way the extraordinary
requirement or the conditions or considerations that we hold as
a government agency properties that were formaldehyde infested?
Mr. Kempf. With our counsel we reviewed the existing
regulations, the prohibitions in those regulations, and then
the information that was provided to us. Additionally, because
there was nothing regarding formaldehyde save for the HUD
regulations, we felt it was important to provide additional
information to the potential buyers, which we did with the
certification and the restrictions on the purchase.
Unfortunately, the regulations didn't allow us--there was no
other regulation to review with respect to formaldehyde that
would have prevented us from going forward with the sales.
Mr. Rush. That concludes my time. I recognize now Mr.
Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Garratt, how old is FEMA? How long has FEMA been in
existence?
Mr. Garratt. Since 1979.
Mr. Whitfield. 1979. And during that time, I guess it has
been customary to provide these mobile homes, park trailers,
and travel trailers for temporary housing, is that correct?
Mr. Garratt. It preceded FEMA's existence, sir, yes.
Mr. Whitfield. So it is something that has been going on
for quite some time?
Mr. Garratt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Now in the Katrina disaster, how was the
decision made to provide this temporary housing? Was it in
response to a request from the governor of Louisiana or the
White House or how was that decision made?
Mr. Garratt. It was a direct result of the situation that
the states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas faced at the
time, yes. Each one of the governors requested individual
assistance. Each of them requested this form of support as did
the jurisdictions. How we responded in each one of the
jurisdictions was largely dependent on what the jurisdictions
would support. Not all jurisdictions wanted community sites,
for example, others did. Most of the jurisdictions were very
interested in having us provide these on an individual's
private property where we could.
Mr. Whitfield. So the states were making the basic
decisions on the type of--whether it was community siting or
whatever?
Mr. Garratt. I would say it was a joint decision, sir, as
opposed to--the state was contributing to that. They were
indicating preferences and then we were working to try to
satisfy what it was that a state and again individual
jurisdictions requested.
Mr. Whitfield. I notice that HUD has a standard of 4 parts
per million of formaldehyde in the trailers. These units that
went out from FEMA initially to Katrina victims, did it exceed
or was it equal to the HUD requirement at that time?
Mr. Garratt. The HUD requirement applied only to mobile
homes. The vast majority of units that FEMA rolled into the
Gulf Coast were recreational vehicles, predominantly travel
trailers. As you know, travel trailers are not designed to be
long term.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Garratt. So the answer is they were not built to meet
HUD standards. They were built to meet industry standards.
Mr. Whitfield. So they problem exceeded it at that point
and then at some point, I think in your testimony you indicated
that you all asked manufacturers to meet this standard, is that
correct?
Mr. Garratt. We did two things, is because we had a fair
number of legacy units, new units remaining following Hurricane
Katrina, we had states that required the use of mobile homes,
park models, et cetera, we required states to establish levels
that were acceptable to them. We would test units and then roll
in units that met those. We are also separately building or
having built units that meet a much more rigorous standard,
which is the .016 PPM standard.
Mr. Whitfield. The Centers for Disease Control, on April
24, 2008, released a health study of children in Hancock
County, Mississippi who were between 2 and 12 years old, and
the study's purpose was to determine if the upper respiratory
health of children living in FEMA trailers differed from those
who did not, and the results showed no discernible difference.
And I am just curious because of this health issue and the
publicity surrounding it, did FEMA at any time conduct some
sort of a survey or accumulate data relating to the health of
people who lived in these trailers?
Mr. Garratt. FEMA has not, but we have provided funding to
the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease
Control to do some studies, and that includes a children's
health study.
Mr. Whitfield. And have any results come in from that?
Mr. Garratt. We do not have any results yet.
Mr. Whitfield. And do we know when these results may be
coming?
Mr. Garratt. I believe CDC is still working on the
contract, but I do not have a date.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. So that is pending at this point in
time. Mr. Jones, has EPA formally adopted the California
standard yet on formaldehyde?
Mr. Jones. We have not. As I mentioned in my testimony, we
are considering the adoption of that standard or some other
approach to regulation formaldehyde in pressed wood, and we
will be making the decision about what path to go down some
time in 2011.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, so no action before 2011 from EPA.
Okay. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just
also welcome Bob Latta of Ohio to this committee. We know he is
going to be a valuable member of the committee, and I just want
to formally thank you for joining. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes Ms. Sutton for 2 minutes--
excuse me, Ms. Sutton, 5 minutes.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scientific evidence
shows that formaldehyde can cause cancer, respiratory problems,
and other health conditions, and while other governmental
bodies have made determinations on how dangerous formaldehyde
really is the EPA has been undergoing its assessment of
formaldehyde since 1997. Thirteen years later, the assessment
is still not completed, and I think that is too long, and the
Government Accountability Office agrees. In 2008 testimony, GAO
stated that EPA's inability to complete its assessment has had
a significant impact on EPA's Air Toxics Program. In
particular, GAO notes that in 2004 when EPA promulgated a
standard for formaldehyde in plywood and composite wood
products, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation decided not to use
the outdated EPA assessment. Instead, EPA used a newer
industry-funded assessment, which was seen as unusual and
controversial and found by other EPA staff in the Office of
Research and Development to have numerous problems.
GAO also states that the delay will continue to impact
future EPA regulatory actions, so my question is what is the
average length of time that it takes the EPA to complete a
chemical assessment and is it highly unusual for this
assessment to have taken so long from start to finish assuming
it is completed on time?
Mr. Jones. Thank you. It would be hard to answer that
question, the last question that you had, because of the range
of chemicals that we evaluate in the Environmental Protection
Agency. I will say that the administrator has made it clear
that enhancing our existing chemicals program under TSCA is a
priority for her, and part of the expression of that priority
is our assessment on formaldehyde. We believe that within a
month from now, we will have made public our assessment of both
the cancer and the non-cancer hazards associated with
formaldehyde that we will then use to develop a regulatory
strategy with respect to formaldehyde that will become public
and that will become public in 2011. But our assessment of the
hazard of formaldehyde, which right now is in interagency
review within the executive branch, should be released for
public comment in about a month's time.
Ms. Sutton. In your opinion, had the EPA completed the
formaldehyde assessment in a reasonable time frame, do you
think this would have impacted the allowable levels of
formaldehyde in plywood and composite wood products used in the
FEMA trailers prior to the 2005 hurricanes, anybody?
Mr. Jones. From the EPA, I would say that a big priority of
this Administration is our implementation of TSCA as well as
reform of TSCA, and I think that is because the last time we
have taken a regulatory action under section 6, which is the
banning or restriction provisions of TSCA, was 1991, and I
think it is a combination of the limitations in that statute
and the agency being a little bit gun shy after we lost a court
case in 1991 around that. I think had we established some
formaldehyde standards it may well have impacted the situation
if we had done that before 2004.
Ms. Sutton. I appreciate your candor and the answer, and I
also appreciate the fact that obviously this is a new
administration, and I hope that they are going to be far more
aggressive in getting things done in a timely way. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentle lady yields back. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Latta for 2 minutes--I am sorry, 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Gentlemen, thanks very much for coming before the committee
today. I am not sure if I missed it in reading through your
testimony or if it is maybe not there, Mr. Garratt, how much
did we pay for the trailers in total? Do you have a figure on
that when all the trailers were purchased in question?
Mr. Garratt. I don't have a figure although I have heard
several of the folks here cite the figure of over $2 billion,
and by trailers for all of the forms of temporary housing units
that were purchased following Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. Latta. You say $2 billion?
Mr. Garratt. I heard that figure cited here. I don't have
the figure in front of me that gives that.
Mr. Latta. If we could get that, I would appreciate that
just to check that. And also in looking at the testimony we
were paying about $130 million to store those units. The next
question I guess I have is of the 22,635 units that are left
out there that haven't been sold through a large lot, I guess
one of the questions I have is as these things are being sold
when the inspections were being done, and maybe all three of
you could answer, did you inspect a certain model or each one
of these had to be inspected individually before they went out
for the formaldehyde level?
Mr. Kempf. GSA takes the representations that its customer
makes with respect to the property being sold but we don't
actually perform an independent inspection on the property
itself. And often times on the lots, they are open for
inspection by perspective buyers.
Mr. Latta. Okay. You say you are taking the representations
from who, please?
Mr. Kempf. From our customers. In this case, it would be
FEMA.
Mr. Latta. Okay. So on FEMA's side then, going back, Mr.
Garratt, are we saying then with the--so you all had done the
inspection for the formaldehyde level, is that how I understand
that?
Mr. Garratt. We can test for formaldehyde but we don't
necessarily inspect for it, and we did not test for
formaldehyde in the vast majority of units that were put up for
sale.
Mr. Latta. Okay. I guess the next question then is as these
units are being sold, what kind of notification was put into
the trailer? Was it by FEMA or GSA saying that these aren't
supposed to be inhabited for any length of time, not for long-
term?
Mr. Kempf. I believe there were two things done. One, there
was a sticker placed on the window that talked about the
potential of formaldehyde and that it to be used as housing.
Secondly, each of the purchasers before they bid on the auction
was required to sign a certification that they understood about
the nature of the formaldehyde potential and that they weren't
to be used for housing and that that would be passed on in
subsequent sales.
Mr. Latta. Now when you say in subsequent sales, is that
something that is put on--like is there a title to these units?
Mr. Kempf. Actually there is a form that is given to the
purchasers that would allow them to go to the state agency and
get an actual title for the unit.
Mr. Latta. I was just kind of curious because I know like
in the State of Ohio like if a car has been damaged in a
certain way sometimes something is put on the title, and was
there something that was placed on the title so when these
things were transferred that it would say these were purchased
through GSA by way of FEMA that there could be a health risk in
these?
Mr. Kempf. Let me confer with one of my colleagues who is
here.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Kempf. We would not have put that on anything except if
we sold scrap units, then we would put that restriction on.
Mr. Latta. And then just following up on that line, is
there any follow-up, would anybody ever spot check to find out
where these things went to make sure that the label was still
on the units after they were sold and placed out in the
consumer stream?
Mr. Kempf. I don't know that we have gone out and
inspected, but we did get some reports and did follow up with
them with a referral to our Inspector General that sales were
being made. In two instances, we found sales being made without
the proper disclosures in accordance with the certifications
that were made during the auction, and those were referred to
our Inspector General for review.
Mr. Latta. Just to follow up quickly on that. I know my
time has expired. What is the Inspector General's authority
then for that review or what is the penalty or what is the
follow-up then through the Inspector General when someone has
removed one of these labels?
Mr. Kempf. I am not familiar with their authorities but
there are criminal liabilities which I referenced in my
testimony in federal statutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Sarbanes is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just preface
this by saying what I always say when we have hearings on
chemicals, which is that if the public understood how little
regulation there is of chemicals, they wouldn't believe it, but
I think over time they are discovering it, and I want to thank
the chairman for the hearings he has had informing TSCA and
other efforts to bring more of a regime to govern chemical use
in this country. The travel trailers that are being sold now by
private concerns are presumably now in a lesser standard than
the ones that you have demanded or you have been able to
procure from manufacturers going forward, right, because the
standard you are using----
Mr. Garratt. Correct, sir.
Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. Is much higher than what is
still being delivered out there in the private market?
Mr. Garratt. Correct. As far as the new travel trailers,
they are being produced to our specifications. That is correct.
Mr. Sarbanes. Okay.
Mr. Garratt. By the way, sir, I would also like to
challenge what appears to be the prevailing misperception here
that the units that we are selling right now are in some way
not ordinary units. In fact, all of the travel trailers that we
are offering for sale through GSA were ordinary units. They
were built to meet or exceed industry standards. Many of them
were purchased off the lots, and they were built using ordinary
building standards, so they are no different than any units
that are being commercially, have been commercially produced,
and are being lived in by or occupied or used by millions of
people throughout the United States.
Mr. Sarbanes. Understood. But you have created, you have
staked out now a new standard.
Mr. Garratt. Correct.
Mr. Sarbanes. And I am curious in terms of EPA, do you
think that is where we are headed? Like what do you think of
this standard that has been set now by FEMA?
Mr. Jones. As I mentioned, our assessment is right now in
an interagency review being evaluated so it is a little bit
premature, but I will say that it is in the ballpark of the
number that the agency currently has in that interagency review
that will be made public. That process wraps up in the near
future.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I would suggest that by reason of FEMA
having now set a new standard, it just raises the urgency on
EPA to move faster because there is going to be a gap now,
right, there is people that are going to assume ownership of
these trailers and other kinds of housing that will be exposed
under a lesser standard than what EPA has carved out--what FEMA
has carved out and EPA needs to catch up with that new standard
quickly.
Mr. Garratt. Sir, I just need to clarify one thing, and
that is FEMA is not a standard-setting organization. We
establish specifications.
Mr. Sarbanes. I understand. It is the best practice you put
in place, not a standard, but hopefully the standards will
follow behind that. I am real curious, who is buying these? You
talked about 11 lots being auctioned and so forth. Who is
buying those? Just give me some examples.
Mr. Kempf. The large lots were generally bought by dealers.
The individual units were bought by individual buyers. If you
need further information, I think we can provide that to the
committee.
Mr. Sarbanes. Yeah, I would be curious to get that
information.
Mr. Kempf. If you need it, we can provide the list.
Mr. Sarbanes. And the other question is, is there any
affirmative like follow-up that you do to just kick the tires
on whether the certification they have made that they are not
going to use these trailers for certain things that that is
being followed through on? Is that something that you plan to
do or could be done?
Mr. Kempf. At this point, we have been responding to
complaints, citizen complaints, referrals to us. And I did want
to respond back to the question asked by Congressman Latta, one
of the things that can be done with our Inspector General is a
referral to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution if they find that
the certifications were not complied with.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I would encourage you maybe to do a
more systematic follow-up because if stories accumulate that
these things ended up with the wrong use then people want to
know why that wasn't done. And, real quickly, the last question
is now that the new trailer, fleet or inventory is being
purchased, are you going to have enough in time for say the
next hurricane season? What is the projection there?
Mr. Garratt. Ultimately, it is going to depend on what the
demand is in response to any given incident. What we plan to
have is a baseline inventory of 4,000 units that we will
maintain at two sites. That will be sufficient, we believe, for
us to fill the gap while we stand up, operationalize, and get
production lines moving to then provide units on a basically
just in time delivery schedule. So the answer is we believe
that in a normal disaster environment that 4,000 will be
sufficient to provide that gap.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garratt, just
briefly, explain to us in regard to a mobile home versus a
travel trailer. You know, we are all familiar with the
controversy that occurred at the CDC in regard to the report
and the testing and all the heads that rolled in that agency
over the report or lack of a report. But I am curious to know
was the problem just in these travel trailers or also in the
mobile home type structure that is designed for permanent
living? I think you said in your testimony these travel
trailers are really kind of a weekend sort of thing and folks
are not supposed to be living in those day in and day out,
seven days a week, you know, 24-7. Explain a little bit about
that, you know, why these travel trailers were put on lots
rather than mobile homes.
Mr. Garratt. Just a little context, mobile homes, typically
800 square feet plus, travel trailers 200 square feet plus.
Mobile homes have very robust ventilation systems and they are
also built to HUD standards. Travel trailers are not built to
HUD standards and they don't have robust ventilation systems.
The result, when formaldehyde builds up in a travel trailer
there is less ventilation taking place to remove that.
We used travel trailers because 80 percent of the units
that we placed in Louisiana were travel trailers and they were
on individuals' private property, and that is because people
wanted their units on their property to help augment their
ability to rebuild their homes and because that is the only
unit that will fit on someone's private property. They are
quickly made. They are mobile. We can roll them in. We can set
them up quickly and get somebody stabilized relatively quickly,
so that is why we used travel trailers in such numbers in the
past. Also, there were restrictions in terms of the floor plain
on the use of mobile homes in sections of the Gulf Coast that
also further reduced our ability to use mobile homes or larger
units down there.
Mr. Gingrey. So going forward in the future, is it safe to
say that FEMA would not do that in the future?
Mr. Garratt. No, sir. It would be safe to say that what we
are no longer going to do are put travel trailers in a
community site setting. In other words, community site settings
are for people like families who are renters, and so they don't
have some place--a house to rebuild or necessarily an apartment
complex to go back to, and there may not be apartments that are
built for some period of time, and so they are likely to be in
that community site setting for a long period of time.
A travel trailer is no place for someone to live for a long
period of time. That is why we are restricting their use to
private sites and strictly those sites that we believe can be
rebuilt within a relatively short period of time, say six
months. Further, all of our units are going to be formaldehyde-
reduced units, as well as have these very robust mobile home
style ventilation systems to help further improve the
formaldehyde--
Mr. Gingrey. In the travel trailers?
Mr. Garratt. That is correct.
Mr. Gingrey. All right. Thank you, Mr. Garratt. I am
reassured by that. Mr. Kempf, let me ask you this following on
with what my friend from Ohio, Mr. Latta, was just asking you.
You testified that the GSA provides full and complete
descriptions including known deficiencies if such information
is provided by the owning agency. Did you tell people
interested in the auction that these trailers indeed had issues
with elevated amounts of formaldehyde, mold, water damager, and
gas leaks?
Mr. Kempf. We did offer in the description the fact that
there were issues, potential issues, with formaldehyde. On none
of the other issues that you had brought up were conveyed to us
by the owning agency, so I don't believe we discussed any of
that.
Mr. Gingrey. Okay. You stated that GSA coordinated with
FEMA to develop a certification statement to inform purchasers
of potential formaldehyde levels and other restrictions. What
criteria did you use to establish the certificate and the
information provided on it? Did you coordinate with any other
federal agencies besides FEMA?
Mr. Kempf. Just let me confer with my experts. No. We did
confer with FEMA and with our counsel in both agencies to
develop this certificate.
Mr. Gingrey. All right. Let me ask you one final question
in the 10 seconds that I have left. You state that on March 2,
2010, just a month ago, GSA sent an electronic mail, e-mail
message to buyers of the travel trailers reminding them of the
requirements of the certification. What did the certification
message state?
Mr. Kempf. The exact certification that was provided at the
auction?
Mr. Gingrey. Yes.
Mr. Kempf. I think we have a copy of it that we can provide
to the committee. It was a rather--it is about a half a page
document.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I would request that they
provide that to the committee. I think that is very important
that we have that as part of the record.
Mr. Rush. Without objection.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you, Mr.
Kempf. I see my time has expired so I will yield back to the
chairman.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks these witnesses and thanks the
members. We are going to dismiss this panel. Again, we want to
thank you so much for taking the time to come and share with us
your observations and we look forward to working with you in
the future. The record will remain open for 14 days, and in
that 14-day period of time the committee members through an
informal writing will be able to ask questions, and we ask that
you respond in a timely manner. Thank you so much.
The committee will now ask the second panel to please be
seated. The chair recognizes the second panel. I want to
introduce the second panel to the subcommittee members. On my
left is Mr. Gabe Chasnoff. He is the Director and Producer of
Renaissance Village, which is a documentary that was described
in earlier testimony. Seated next to Mr. Chasnoff is Dr. Corey
Hebert, who is the Chief Medical Officer for the Recovery
School District for the Louisiana Department of Education. And
next to Dr. Hebert is Mr. Curtis Howard, President of the
National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property.
I want to inform the witnesses that it is the practice of
this subcommittee to swear in witnesses, so I ask that you
would please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Rush. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
all answered in the affirmative. Mr. Chasnoff, you are
recognized. I think you have some film for us for your
testimony, so we will give you about 10 minutes for your
opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF GABE CHASNOFF, DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER, RENAISSANCE
VILLAGE; COREY HEBERT, M.D., CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, RECOVERY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CURTIS
HOWARD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGENCIES FOR
SURPLUS PROPERTY
TESTIMONY OF GABE CHASNOFF
Mr. Chasnoff. First, I would like to thank the committee
for inviting me to speak about my film, Renaissance Village. It
is not likely a film you would have seen on the shelves of
Blockbuster or download on Netflix. In fact, Renaissance
Village has not received any major distribution through any
major film company, and when I asked them why that was the
answer was always the same, because people don't care anymore
about Hurricane Katrina, formaldehyde poisoning and FEMA
trailers. This committee hearing, I believe proves them wrong.
Renaissance Village is named for the largest FEMA trailer park
that was established after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005. The film was produced over
the course of 18 months from January, 2007 to June, 2008, and
focuses on 5 residents desperately trying to reassemble their
lives after losing nearly everything in the storms.
At the beginning of the shoot no one in the media,
government or inside the trailer park was talking about
formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. We had no idea the story was
going to break. I was an eyewitness to the transformation many
residents experienced as they went from victims of a natural
disaster to victims of federal negligence. It is important to
point out that I tried to keep the story in Renaissance Village
as objective as possible. My goal in creating the film was not
to placate the federal government or the park residents. I
wanted to let each side tell their story and let those voices
speak for themselves.
To me, the story of Renaissance Village is more than just
about formaldehyde in FEMA trailers or government red tape. It
is about the connection between history and collective memory
in one of the most socio-economically challenged communities in
America. Among many of the residents I met, the frustrating
experience with FEMA was compounded by an already existing
sense of being wronged by the government. Decades of racism,
neglect, impoverishment, and socio-economic isolation hardened
into feelings of dejection and worthlessness. The residents of
Renaissance Village were not simply in need of disaster
assistance. The residents needed reassurance that their
existence mattered to their government, to their neighbors, and
to the American people. I will now present as part of my
testimony a short compilation of the film.
[Video.]
Mr. Rush. Do you want to bring your testimony to a close?
Mr. Chasnoff. Yes. I yield it back to you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chasnoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Dr. Hebert. Dr. Hebert,
you are recognized for 5 minutes or thereabouts.
TESTIMONY OF COREY HEBERT, M.D.
Dr. Hebert. Thank you, sir. Chairman Rush, and members of
the subcommittee, I just want to thank you for allowing me to
speak. This is something that hits very close to home for me.
Just to give you more background. I am the Chief Medical Editor
for WDSU television which is an NBC affiliate, and I do
investigative reporting as a physician. And what I have found
is that this is a very controversial emotionally charged issue.
We know this. But it really shouldn't be so controversial
because in the grand scheme of things it is not very
controversial at all. Many locations in New Orleans, and I have
lived there for 13 years, my office was only closed for 30 days
after Hurricane Katrina. Myself and my partner were the only
pediatricians practicing in New Orleans so I think I am one of
the few people that can tell you from the beginning, my office
was reopened 30 days after, about the actual chronology of what
I have seen on the ground in New Orleans.
Many of my patients who were placed in FEMA trailers
initially reported symptoms of nasal congestion, nasal burning,
watery, stinging eyes. Some of the patients were atopic before
they started living in the trailers, and atopic obviously means
having allergic symptoms. But the group of people I want to
talk about today, these people had no allergic symptoms prior
to living in these trailers. They were perfectly healthy
individuals. In these particular patients the symptoms usually
progressed and worsened with more and more exposure to the
formaldehyde.
Over time the prolonged exposure resulted in chronic
conditions like bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, sometime
neurologic problems. I am the chairperson of the Head Off
Environmental Asthma Program of Louisiana, which is funded by
the National Institutes of Environmental Health, and we have
seen lots of patients that have been exposed to formaldehyde
that have gotten progressively worse and worse. I have had this
aforementioned experience including rashes and skin infections
and skin irritations with over 500 patients. Children are at
most risk for this toxicity and makes it come sooner to
effective gas exposure due to many reasons, and I will give you
5 of them.
Children have a greater surface to mass ratio in their
lungs and, therefore, they absorb more toxins. Children also
breathe faster. When they breathe faster, they take in more
toxin. They spend more time at home than their older children
counterparts. They have permanent metabolic systems that may
not be able to clear formaldehyde more appropriately as an
adult may. And also formaldehyde is a relatively heavy gas so
it is going to live a little bit closer as settled to the
ground closer to where the children breathe, so when you have a
toddler 1-year-old, he is going to get prospectively more
formaldehyde exposure than someone who is obviously taller.
Moreover, since this chemical is a known carcinogen, it is
a known carcinogen, it is not that we think it is a carcinogen,
maybe it is a carcinogen, no, we know it is a carcinogen, and
the EPA, in fact, no matter that they are coming out with soon,
they right now classify formaldehyde as B1, a probable human
carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer
classifies formaldehyde as Group 1, sufficient evidence for
carcinogenicity in humans. Now you can read all types of data
and look at all types of reports, but the point is that we have
done a lot of studies in rats. We know that it is a carcinogen
in rats. But guess what? We are not rats. People are not rats,
and we know that--maybe not all people. Some people are rats.
But we know that it is a big problem, okay, and we know that we
don't have the data to support it.
In business, I run a business as well, it is an if then
statement, if then, then this. But in medicine, we can't be
like that. We have to say if this then maybe this, and if maybe
this causes cancer maybe then we can no longer sell these
things. I have several key findings in here, but the Centers
for Disease Control put out a very concise document. You guys
understand that. You guys have seen it, so I am not going to go
through it, but the whole point to get as much fresh air as
possible. Inappropriate, it is inappropriate.
Now, in summary, I know I have a few seconds left, when
these trailers were constructed the documentary even shows
someone who built these trailers, big government
specifications, basically for all intents and purposes a blank
check for the industry to produce units without regard to human
health. There can be little doubt that after receiving
government orders any manufacturer, any manufacturer would
speed up production and widen profit margins because this is
America. It is capitalism. It is what we do. But in a broader
sense the extremely high percentage of trailers found in tests
do have excessive formaldehyde. It is not that people in the
Gulf Coast don't appreciate the fact that they had nothing--I
would rather make sure that someone had a roof over their head
as opposed to having a formaldehyde-laden trailer. But the
point is that we need to do something about it. We need to stop
this problem from being a Gulf Coast problem to a national
problem.
One thing I do want to say before we close is that there
are weak warnings out there, not really appropriate, and we are
trying to get insight today to avoid these huge problems. When
you have two government entities, two, you know, CDC, EPA, and
then FEMA, then GSA, when you have two, or four organizations
that have two diverging concepts, what is going to happen is
that at one point it is going to converge. It is going to
converge. And if people are totally disagreeing about the level
and the safety of these things when it converges it is going to
be a problem for the people in the trailers, but it is going to
be a problem for the people sitting in these chairs because
somebody has got to do something about it. And they are going
to be held to the mat for us sitting before you right now
saying this is a problem now.
We don't need this to come back in 20 years and say, look,
I want right now people to understand if we do something about
this now people understand it was a dire need, but if we
continue to do it and it is a problem that is going to be
happening over and over again. Common sense in America, I see
it every time I go into an urban area, common sense has a white
line around it like someone killed it laying right in the
middle of the street, and I am sick of people killing common
sense in America just for money and greed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hebert follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Howard for 5 minutes
or thereabouts.
TESTIMONY OF CURTIS HOWARD
Mr. Howard. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Whitfield, distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name
is Curtis Howard. I work for the State of Illinois as the
administrator of the Federal Surplus Property Program. I am an
advisor in township government and an auxiliary deputy sheriff
back in my county. I also serve as the current president of the
National Association of States Agencies for Surplus Property or
NASAP. Permit me to take just a moment to explain who we are.
Our association is comprised of all 50 states and U.S.
territories. We represent more than 67,000 organizations in
your communities. We serve as the conduit for federal financial
assistance in the form of surplus property and equipment for
your public and private schools, for public libraries, fire,
and police departments, veterans homes, senior centers,
homeless shelters, small minority businesses and so on.
Our states throughout the nation work to transfer federal
personal property to those who need it most. The Federal
Surplus Property Program exists because Congress wisely
understood decades ago that the highest and best use of federal
surplus property is reutilization. Federal agencies do now, and
always will, continue to have preference on reutilization of
federal equipment before our program, but when those needs are
met the next best use of surplus property should be to transfer
or donate it back to the states across the nation, place it
back into service in our communities.
Congress believed that this was indeed the best practice
when it created the Property Act in 1949. At times, our federal
agencies appear to possess the knowledge and display the
characteristics that make them good stewards of the public's
property. Supporting creation of the 2006 amendment that
allowed the donation of these FEMA units to the state is a good
example. In 2006, FEMA and GSA stood tall with our association
and the Manufactured Housing Association recognizing that
reutilization of federal properties such as these trailers and
mobile homes could maximize the useful life of taxpayer-funded
assets.
Reutilization, transfer, and donation always shall be the
first and best use of federal excess and surplus property. The
state agencies that comprise NASAP have placed nearly 6,500
travel trailers and mobile homes into our communities more than
$117 million in federal financial assistance. During 2007 and
2008 because of the ingenuity of our states and communities
they were reutilized, not as temporary housing but as mobile
command units for our police and fire departments, as portable
offices for road districts, and heating and cooling centers or
first aid stations for seniors and the general public during
community fairs and festivals or for tool storage for trailers,
and the list goes on.
But somewhere in late 2008 and 2009 during the storm of
media scrutiny in the face of public outcry and class action
lawsuits, FEMA lost sight of the very public policy it earlier
chose to support, and when the court order lifted, plans to
sell the remaining 100,000 were swiftly announced with little
regard for the very excess in donation programs FEMA earlier
pledged to support. Now I do not wish to mislead the members of
this committee. NASAP could not, not on its best day, ever hope
to transfer 100,000 travel trailers or mobile homes, but we do
continue to have community interest. We do have need. We have
donee interest for several thousand more and we have and
continued to this day conveyed this interest to FEMA and GSA.
The demand remains high. At first, we were told no. When
the pressure to sell hit, NASAP stood with the Manufactured
Housing Association and the Sierra Club in opposition and
against these public sales. NASAP's core mission is to
reutilize every day in every state, and we place these trailers
into the hands of thousands of organizations such as a small
town manager in Missouri who created the town's first
administrative office out of a FEMA mobile home. And in Texas,
the City of Christine, Texas replaced an old Morgan building
used for a town hall with a FEMA mobile home, and the success
stories are endless.
Just yesterday, nine states returned to Brooklyn,
Mississippi for the second time this month to view and select
more travel trailers, and for the second time federal interest
for more than 1,000 travel trailers trump the state's interest.
Federal agencies have priority over our program to acquire
these units, and they should be reutilized. The federal
agencies and their programs took nearly 430 units. They got the
best of the best and our states got the best of the worst. Nine
states were present on site and by phone and our nine states
came home with less than 60 units yesterday.
Each state's Federal Surplus Program provides
accountability on how federal surplus property is used. GSA
holds our feet to the fire ensuring each state complies with
federal regulations on donated property. But who regulates what
the federal agencies do with these trailers, and why are they
using them and for what purpose? I understand FEMA is accepting
bids to scrap the remaining inventory of trailers meaning that
both the taxpayers and the states lose their investment. If the
states have found the means and the ingenuity to reutilize this
equipment beyond temporary housing, doesn't it make sense to
allow the states to try and maximize the taxpayer dollar by
allowing our program one last chance before they are destroyed?
If even one more school got to use that trailer for storing
their baseball equipment and it meant the school district
didn't have to rent or spend money for rental storage, isn't
that what our program is all about? In closing, I urge this
committee to take the necessary steps to ensure that the public
interest are put before future sales. When utilized for
purposes other than housing, these units offer an alternate and
safe use within our communities rather than sale or
destruction, and what better use of taxpayer dollar can there
be besides donating back to the very communities and taxpayers
who funded it.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
67,000 organizations that NASAP represents, I thank you very
much for this opportunity to testify and be heard. I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chasnoff--I mean, Mr. Howard, the chairman
recognizes himself for 5 minutes. So your organization upholds
the sale?
Mr. Howard. Correct.
Mr. Rush. And that observation was based on?
Mr. Howard. We requested reutilization to be able to
transfer these back to the communities so that they could be
used not as housing, temporary housing, but for the purposes of
mobile command centers, storage units and so forth.
Mr. Rush. The question of the relative safety of the units,
did that ever come into consideration?
Mr. Howard. Yes, it did. In fact, many of our states tested
the OSHA standards and even any of the states that had EPA
regulations or standards, those were also tested, and I can
tell you that less than 1 percent of those that were donated to
the states had any levels of formaldehyde.
Mr. Rush. You indicated that, you used the phrase to
describe this latest sale. When did that sale occur?
Mr. Howard. Yesterday it was an opportunity for the federal
agencies and for NASAP, the states, to go back in and look at
these 1,000 travel trailers and mobile homes that are located
in Mississippi.
Mr. Rush. These are same trailers and mobile homes that
were part of the 100,000 or so?
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. Actually these were part of trailers
that were already offered for public auction and I believe the
bidder defaulted to GSA, and, therefore, they came available,
and so we asked for one more chance to reutilize and donate,
and so we did get that chance.
Mr. Rush. And the outcome of that, you said the federal
government got the best of the best and the states got the
worst of the worst?
Mr. Howard. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Nine trailer homes out of approximately how many?
Mr. Howard. Actually we had--there were 1,000 trailers
offered for screening and viewing of all different sorts of
conditions, and out of those 1,000, 430 were selected by other
federal agencies for reuse and then the states got to go look
and see what was left and those states selected--9 states
selected approximately 58 travel trailers and mobile homes out
of that.
Mr. Rush. And none of these, I assume, were used for
housing?
Mr. Howard. That is correct, sir. We do not use them for
temporary housing.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chasnoff, what conclusions have you arrived
at that would give this subcommittee and also federal agencies,
what conclusions have you discovered? What are some of the
advice that you would give us based on your observations?
Mr. Chasnoff. Based on my experience, I would say that
government and non-government agencies need to take more
consideration of the cultural background and the personal,
emotional, and psychological components that go into relief
efforts. In the case of Renaissance Village, I was there when
the Stafford Act expired when there were 1,700 of 3,000 people
left, and those 1,700 were coming from communities that really
they didn't have savings or mutual funds or anything to fall
back on. And I think one of the biggest problems that the
residents encountered and that I witnessed was that there was
no personal consideration or personal contact with the
residents. I think simply had FEMA come and met with people
face to face and asked are you okay, is there anything more we
can do, and just try to make it more personal, I think that
would have helped.
I also certainly don't think using travel trailers is a
good idea, and I think that in the future there needs to be
more other methods. With the amount of money that went into
mobile homes and travel trailers and the Katrina cottages,
which was another method of housing victims of the storm, there
could have been some other type of temporary communities built.
Mr. Rush. What is the current status of Renaissance Village
now? Your documentary was--how dated is your documentary?
Mr. Chasnoff. We released it last year. Renaissance Village
closed in June of 2008. When it was closed, there were still
about 30 trailers that were still occupied and FEMA had to take
them out, remove them, and then put them somewhere else, but
since then a lot of the residents who were featured in the film
were kind of scattered.
Mr. Rush. My time has concluded. Dr. Hebert, what happens
after exposure to high levels of formaldehyde? Do the
conditions that you described, do they end once the exposure is
gone? Are there any ongoing illnesses or symptoms that one
might have?
Dr. Hebert. Yeah. Actually it is very interesting. It seems
to be a very bi-modal distribution meaning you have these
initial symptoms but most of the time with patient populations
in New Orleans you address those issues, so if a patient has
asthma and they say they have been in a trailer then we address
those issues, and then we give them medicine and then they have
to take medicine every day to keep the symptoms away. But then
after a while the bi-modal portion of this, people start having
more severe symptoms requiring more and more medicine,
pulmonary issues.
And, you know, the whole carcinogen thing, we don't know. I
haven't had any patients that have come down with a new cancer
or neoplasm since they have been exposed to the formaldehyde in
the trailers. However, the symptoms get progressively worse.
And there are several of my patients, very personal situations
where the patients are removed out of the FEMA trailer and they
continue to have the same symptoms so it seems like more of a
remodeling of people's lungs as opposed to, you know, you eat
peanuts, you get an allergic reaction. You stop eating peanuts,
no more allergic reaction. That is not the way this works. You
are exposed to formaldehyde. You do damage to your lungs and
you have damage to your lungs for an extended period of time.
That is the way this is playing out, and that is why we need
more studies to see.
Mr. Rush. My time has concluded. The chair now recognizes
the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
Mr. Howard, I am not sure I understood you correctly, but did
you say that less than 1 percent of the trailers that were
given to the state and local communities had an elevation of
formaldehyde?
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. Out of the 6,500 travel trailers that
were issued to the states, less than 1 percent had any type of
elevated level.
Mr. Whitfield. How do you explain that?
Mr. Howard. You know, one of the--I think as we heard FEMA
say earlier today there were some commercial models and then
there were, I believe, some FEMA spec models, which was sort of
a downgraded version of, you know, whether it is a slide out or
if it has 1 bedroom or 2 bedrooms, and things like that. Many
of the states that acquired these during 2007 and 2008 had
acquired the commercial style trailers which were readily
available in any market.
Mr. Whitfield. What were the total number of people that
actually lived in these trailers provided by FEMA, whether it
was a travel trailer or whatever it was? Does anyone know the
total number of people that lived in it at one time or the
other?
Dr. Hebert. I have looked at several different resources,
and we have heard anywhere from 120,000 to 180,000 people. I
think that is a very inflated estimate. I think it is closer to
90,000.
Mr. Whitfield. 90,000. Okay. And what would you say is the
longest period of time that any person lived in these trailers?
Dr. Hebert. You know, it is very interesting. When you
drive through the streets of New Orleans or the Mississippi
Gulf Coast people still live in these trailers, and so but on
average I would say about 2 to 3 years on average people lived
in these trailers. And, you know, some people, to be very
honest with you, had no problems while living in the trailers
that they know of, to be very honest. But the most important
part is that we just don't know the long-term effects.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. Has the Centers for Disease Control
or any other health agency tried to do a scientific analysis
and collect data on people who lived in these trailers?
Dr. Hebert. Yes. Centers for Disease Control did a
preliminary study on the short-term effects, and that
information will be out very soon. However, there have been 5
or 6 different vendors that are bidding right now, and I think
our gentleman from FEMA said earlier about the long-term effect
that the study to look at the long-term effect of formaldehyde
in these FEMA trailers has not been awarded yet. It can be
awarded any day now but it has not been awarded yet so from
this point on, you are going to have a lag time to see exactly
what has happened because actually there are several
universities that are looking at doing the study.
Mr. Whitfield. I heard him say that it has not been awarded
yet, but back to CDC. Explain to me again what they are
actually doing on this issue.
Dr. Hebert. Basically what they are doing is looking at a
sample of patients that have been spread throughout, and, to be
very honest with you, at this point the diaspora has accepted
so many of these patients it is hard to--it is just like
herding cats trying to put this thing back together. But we do
have information on them, and what CDC is doing is looking at
the amount of time that they lived in the trailer versus the
amount of symptoms that you had prior to you living in the
trailer, after you lived in the trailer, and since you have
moved out the symptoms, and that is the way it is going to be a
progression of from beginning to long term.
Mr. Whitfield. Now you indicate that you were only 1 of 2
pediatricians practicing there for a while, and so you have
seen a lot of patients. And of the patients that you have seen,
what percent of those would you say have been diagnosed with
some sort of permanent disability?
Dr. Hebert. Disability is a strong word, you know.
Permanent disability, I would say a new disease process such as
asthma, bronchitis, those types of things. Of the people
anecdotally, and I must say anecdotally, of the patients that I
have seen that have lived in the FEMA trailer let us say for
more than a year and a half, I went back before I knew--when I
found out I was coming here. I would say about 20 percent to 30
percent of them are still on some type of respiratory medicine,
50 to 70 percent of them, and I know it is a hard one but it
was hard for me to find these people to catch up with them, 50
to 70 percent were on medicine while they were in the trailers
and have since gotten----
Mr. Whitfield. But the bottom line, at least at this point,
is that we really do not have any sufficient data on this
issue.
Dr. Hebert. On long term. On short term we have a lot of
data.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Dr. Hebert. On long term, we don't.
Mr. Whitfield. Now after Katrina, I remember we had a
hearing and there was some testimony at that time that said
that there were all kinds of toxic elements in play after that
hurricane hit that affected air, soil, and water quality. So
the question becomes can we allocate a certain responsibility
for formaldehyde and then a certain responsibility for these
other issues or not?
Dr. Hebert. You know, your point is well taken, and I will
tell you the lead levels in the soil were very high because the
water sat for so long. They had lots of different things that
were going on. It was like a toxic mess for all practical
purposes. However, once these things--once the water settled,
once things getting back to normal, certain people got FEMA
trailers even a year after the storm was over because they were
still shuffling around and certain people moved into FEMA
trailers that weren't in them before. I had actually, not a
patient, a good friend of mine, who was a songstress in New
Orleans, which you obviously know is a very important thing to
do in New Orleans. And she sang very well, beautiful. She sang
at the Ritz Carlton every Saturday.
When she moved into the trailer 1 year after Hurricane
Katrina, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ensued and now
she still at this point--she lived there for a year and a half,
almost 2 years, still at this point she cannot sing. She still
has breathing issues, still on different medicines. So for
somebody like that, she wasn't playing with toys in the soil.
She wasn't drinking the water. She was drinking only bottled
water. So it narrows the field a little bit. But your point is
well taken that there still may have been things in the air,
but at a year and a half, 2 years out, she is not doing things
like normal children would do.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, when I started asking
questions, I had 3 minutes, now I have 9 minutes, so I think my
time has expired.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Scalise for 5
minutes or thereabouts.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with Mr.
Howard. I think in 2005 your organization wanted the trailers
as donations to be used by local communities. Do you claim that
the trailers are unhealthy or do these claims about the
trailers being unhealthy with the reports we have gotten on
formaldehyde, does that change your initial interest in using
those for people who don't have as many resources?
Mr. Howard. Well, our association represents a variety of
organizations, and I think that because there is no interest or
desire to use these as temporary housing but to use them as
mobile command centers and other types of assets, you know, we
are very comfortable in the fact that the transfers and the
donations that have been made through the program any levels of
formaldehyde that have been detected by our states are very
small and residual, and we also have been reutilizing and
donating trailers that were from the commercial market and not
necessarily any kind of FEMA specification trailers that were
built later on down the line.
Mr. Scalise. Have you all experienced any health problems?
Mr. Howard. No. Speaking for the State of Illinois, I have
had 240 some odd travel trailers transferred out there, and I
got to tell you a lot of them went to police and fire
departments, and they have been using those for the past
several years as mobile command centers, and there is just
absolutely no instance or indication or any notification to my
office that there is a problem.
Mr. Scalise. Your testimony states that your organization
has been doing work for over 4 years and asking the questions
and the federal government has not provided the service and
answers that you need. Can you give me--you can tell me in
brief or just give me a list of what types of questions you
have asked the federal government that you have not got answers
to?
Mr. Howard. Well, the biggest is our demand for the
donation of federal property, and there obviously is competing
interest obviously if a federal agency has the need to
reutilize property then they very specifically have the ability
to go in and request that and put it back into service for the
federal government. During the interim of the travel trailers
and mobile homes, we consistently asked for opportunities over
the years to be able to screen these mobile homes at the
various locations, whether in Mississippi or Alabama or
elsewhere, identify trailers that would be acceptable for
donation and reuse, and then transport those back. I think
probably our most difficult conflict in trying to get
information out is actually being able to sit at the table with
FEMA or GSA and say here is what is happening in the trenches.
Here is what is going on at the state level, and here is what
we see and here is what our donees are seeing. We are regulated
by GSA, but we don't necessarily get to have a voice all the
time in terms of what is going on out there.
Mr. Scalise. Let us see if we can get some better answers
there, and my time is limited so I apologize because I want to
ask Dr. Hebert some questions. I appreciate the work that you
have done in the community and with the Recovery School
District, and obviously you have done a lot of research in this
area. You have stated that CDC recommended that FEMA consider
necessary assistance to Louisiana and Mississippi health
departments to ensure adequate follow-up including medical
needs for trailer residents with health and medical concerns
resulting from residents and FEMA supplied travel trailers or
mobile homes and formaldehyde exposure. In your experience, has
FEMA been forthcoming with this assistance in trying to reach
that objective?
Dr. Hebert. I personally think that they have made an
effort. Has the effort been valiant? No. Has the effort made a
change in the patient population that is the most vulnerable?
No. But have they reached out? They have. I think that it is
something that it gets touchy-feely at times because once they
reach out, how much do they have to satisfy the status quo, and
I think that they could do a better job than they have.
Mr. Scalise. Okay. What is your feeling on, and I know your
testimony addresses this a little bit, but on this proposal to
sell these trailers in light of the health concerns? Do you
feel like--just give me your take on it.
Dr. Hebert. Sure. I don't think that these trailers should
be sold at this time. I think appropriately remediated, I think
with the appropriate data. I would hate for the federal
government to not be able to recoup some of the money that was
graciously given to our area. I think that is a really good
idea, but my job is to take care of people, and when I am
trying to take care of people it really puts a thorn in my side
when what I am trying to do is being totally negated because of
the lack of foresight by a government organization.
Mr. Scalise. I appreciate that. And in your testimony you
also state that any level of formaldehyde greater than the
United States background level is unsafe. What is the level
that is, I guess, safe, and then at what level do you know
these trailers----
Dr. Hebert. Yeah. There have been several different studies
done, .7 parts is really kind of where it needed to be, but the
level that FEMA is dealing with now is the .16. That is way
above. That is way above. And so I think that that is where we
need to be because just like with one cancer cell, it only
takes one cancer cell to make cancer. It doesn't take 25 at one
time. I don't have to transport a tumor and plant it in you for
you to get a cancer. So every body is different, every person
is different, so we never know where that tipping point is
going to be to start a neoplasm or cancer.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you. And I know I am just about out of
time. Just one quick question to Mr. Chasnoff. In your film you
got testimony about what happened to people living in the
trailers prior to the sale. Do you have any information related
to the current condition of those trailers auctioned off?
Mr. Chasnoff. I don't.
Mr. Scalise. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the witnesses for the
contribution of your time and your information. You have really
enlightened us and helped us along the way, and we will
continue to be in touch with you. We want to just ask you, the
record will remain open for a matter of 14 days, and so there
might be members of the subcommittee who want to ask you some
additional questions in writing, and if you would respond in
writing in a reasonable amount of time the subcommittee would
really appreciate it. That said, we thank you so much again,
and thank you for coming to be a part of this. You performed an
invaluable service, so thank you so very much. With that said,
the subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]