U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

76–569 2013

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 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

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 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

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) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
(V) 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

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:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
4 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 8 here 76569A.001

Statement of the Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Hearing on 

"Public Sales of Hurricane KatrinalRita FEMA Trailers: Are they Safe 

or Environmental Time Bombs? 

April 28, 2010 

• Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your calling this hearing on this 

important subject. This issue touches many areas that our 

Committee traditionally has not spent much time covering and I 

appreciate your interest in trying to get to the bottom of this 

matter. 

• That said, I do wish we had the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development here as well to explain what it is doing on 

this subject to prevent problems with these or future trailers. As 

we heard from witnesses last month, many argue that the current 

formaldehyde standard established by HUD is in need of review 

and modernization. 

• On the matter of the substance of this hearing, we all know that 

the one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated an 

entire region of the country and taxed our emergency response 

capacity. According to the Final Report of the Select Bipartisan 

Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to 

Hurricane Katrina, forty-four (44) states and the District of 

Columbia, worked to provide shelter to evacuees forced from 

their homes. For those who stayed behind, public and private 

entities in Louisiana and Mississippi provided temporary shelter. 

Providing longer-term shelter until damaged homes were rebuilt 

was another story. 

• FEMA, as we all know, provided over 120,000 temporary units 

to folks still in the area as a longer-term solution until their 

homes were ready. These units were later the subject of concern 

about elevated amounts of formaldehyde. 
5 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 9 here 76569A.002

• I think our job here today is not to reopen whether purchasing 

those trailers was a good idea. There were many options that the 

Federal government could have taken and some of them were 

better than others. I think the real focus for us today should be a 

few simple questions: 

~ With all the attention focused on this issue over the years, 

why did the Obama Administration consider it a good idea 

to try and sell or auction these trailers to individuals who 

might not have the wherewithal to remediate them? 

~ Other than formaldehyde, what other issues did these 

trailers have? 

~ Was a determination made as to whether those units were 

safe enough for people in all kinds of climates to obtain 

them? If so, who made that decision and on what was it 

based? 

~ Did the Federal government have other legal options 

besides auctioning those trailers? If so, what were they and 

why were they not taken? 

~ Of the units that were not placed in service - meaning they 

were never unwrapped did the potential health problems 

observed in other trailers show up in these and were they 

better or worse? 

~ How much follow-up is planned with the purchasers of 

these units to ensure that they are not facing problems from 

exposures that they do not expect or understand? 

~ What is the impact of this auction on private markets? 

• Mr. Chairman, I hope we can focus our hearing today on the 

trailer auction itself and not open this forum up to other issues 

that we have either discussed or cannot do anything about. 

Americans, those who purchased these trailers or may purchase 

them, deserve answers. I hope we can get them. 

• I yield back the balance of my time. 
6 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
7 

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 longterm 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
8 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
9 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
10 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
11 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
12 

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:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
13 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 17 here 76569A.003

Opening Statement of the Honorable Joe Barton 

Hearing by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection 

"Public Sales of Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: Are 

they Safe or Environmental Time Bombs?" 

April 28, 2010 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me for the purposes of 

giving an opening statement. The topic is important, and I applaud 

you for holding this oversight hearing. 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are a fading historical footnote for 

many, but for people along the Gulf Coast, they are a lasting 

affliction. Their arrival was a time of real disaster, hurt, and need. 

After those storms pounded the Gulf Coast, including my own 

home state of Texas, 12,000 evacuees moved into my 

congressional district to find a place to stay until they could return 

to their homes. And 5,000 of those people stayed in shelters 

throughout my congressional district. 

Official reports suggest that 120,000 trailers and mobile homes 

were provided by FEMA as temporary housing for families and 

individuals who were made homeless by the storms. 

I hope today's hearing is not used to rehash the well-known, 

broadly debated decision to purchase these trailers in the first 

place. I also think that in the aftermath of those historic storms, 

many government workers and officials just did the best they could 

with available resources and knowledge to improve the lot oftheir 

fellow Americans. In retrospect, it's clear that people often had to 

make choices from nothing but bad options. 

That being said, I do think we need to pin down the facts so we can 

know just how much quality control was exercised, how 

widespread the problem was, and whether the fumes from these 
14 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 18 here 76569A.004

units dissipated with time or not. I also agree with the 

Subcommittee Ranking Member, Ed Whitfield, that the really 

important questions that need answers today are more about the 

future than the past. For instance: 

• With all the attention focused on this issue over the years, 

why did the Obama Administration think it was a good idea 

to sell these trailers to people who might not have the 

wherewithal to remediate them? 

• Who is following up with the purchasers of these units to 

ensure that they are not facing problems from exposures that 

they do not expect or understand? 

• Was a determination made as to whether those units were 

safe enough for people in all kinds of climates? If so, who 

made that decision and on what was it based? 

• Did the Federal government have other legal options besides 

auctioning those trailers? If so, what were they and why 

were they not taken? 

• Did the potential health problems show up in the units that 

were never used - meaning they were never unwrapped - and 

were they better or worse? 

Mr. Chairman, the real question for us today is this -- should you 

buy a used trailer from Uncle Sam? That's why I hope we can put 

the focus of our hearing where it belongs, on the auction and its 

potential to extend the misery that began with the hurricanes. 

We know quite a lot about the problems of the trailers, but now the 

Administration is trying to sell these trailers to the public, and I 

think the people who are buying them deserve to know what 

they're in for. I hope we can get the answers they need. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 
15 

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 formVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:31 Jan 10, 2013 Jkt 076569 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A569.XXX A569

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
16 

aldehyde 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
17 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
18 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
19 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
20 

of government to improve temporary housing capabilities. Thank 

you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garratt follows:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
21 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 25 here 76569A.005

DEP ARlMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF 

DAVID GARRATT 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR 

On 

Temporary Housing Units 

FEMA 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

April 28, 2010 

10:00 AM 

Rayburn House Office Building 

Room 2322 
22 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 26 here 76569A.006

Introduction 

Good morning Chainnan Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and other distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. I am David Garratt, Associate Administrator for 

Mission Support within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

appreciate this opportunity to talk with the Subcommittee about how FEMA is 

producing, employing, and disposing of temporary housing units. 

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 timeframe, 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 

when 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 the 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 

home 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 

- 2 -
23 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 27 here 76569A.007

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 rare cases, 

FEMA must obtain access to land capable of supporting multiple mobile homes 

and/or park models or other fonns 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 construction 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 and Prevention issued its interim 

report that found that many of the Katrina-era purchased units tested possessed higher 

than typical indoor background formaldehyde levels, and that the levels of 

formaldehyde in many of these units could affect health. Though no federal guidelines 

existed for residential air quality levels, FEMA invoked construction specifications for 

all new forms of 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 

- 3 -
24 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 28 here 76569A.008

standards could be met. Through our persistence, we successfully obtained units built to 

these exacting and unprecedented standards. 

All temporary housing units cun'ently being purchased by FEMA must meet extremely 

rigorous air quality specifications. FEMA requires that every unit must test below 16 

parts per billion (" ppb" or 0.016 parts per million ("ppm"», which is lower than the 

residential formaldehyde emission levels established by any of the fifty 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 meet FEMA's stringent air quality 

specifications, FEMA has also been storing, at multiple sites across the country and at 

considerable cost, 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 courtordered restrictions on their disposition, FEMA began working to responsibly dispose of 

these units through the General Services Administration (GSA) sales program. FEMA's 

ability to dispose of these units is dictated by the Stafford Act, which authorizes FEMA 

to dispose of units in one of only 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. 

-4-
25 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 29 here 76569A.009

GSA's Federal Management Regulation (FMR) §102-36, §102-37 and §102-38 contain 

the regulations regarding excess, donation, and sale for disposal of federal property. 

According to § 1 02-36.35, "[p ]ersonal property is excess when it is no longer needed by 

the activities within your agency to carry out the functions of official programs, as 

determined by the agency head or designee." The approximately 144,000 temporary 

housing units purchased and used following Katrina, which were returned to FEMA 

following their occupation, no longer satisfY FEMA requirements for housing disaster 

survivors. The cost of storing and maintaining FEMA's inventory of previously used 

units has approached $130 million dollars per year. I 

Members of Congress from both chambers and sides of the aisle have sent letters and 

introduced bills requesting or requiring that FEMA rapidly dispose of the units and 

more expeditiously recoup our investment. 2 FEMA chose large-lot GSA auctions to 

both accelerate the disposition process and save additional taxpayer funds. As of April 

26, we have completed sales for 81,422 units through the large-lot auctions. As of that 

date 22,635 units remained to be sold through large-lot auctions.3 

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 

I Senate Report 111-23, June 1,2009. Note: The program has been downsized since the end of FY09. as we move from 14 

sites with approximately 120,000 excess units and approximately 2000 Ready for Deployment units, the cost total storage 

and maintenance has decreased. 

2For example, S. 713 would "require FEMA to develop a plan for the storage, disposal, transfer, or sale of excess 

temporary housing units in the disaster housing program in order to reduce the expense of storing excessjve numbers of 

temporary housing units." Senate Report 111-23, June 1,2009. 

3 FEMA has disposed of units through other means as well, including GSA's utilization and donation program and donalion 

to Tribes pursuant to PKEMRA. 

- 5 -
26 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 30 here 76569A.010

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, drafted with assistance from 

GSA's Office of General Counsel, and includes a statement that the certification is 

made in accordance with and subject to the penalties of Title 18, Section 1 00 1 of the 

Crime and Criminal Procedures section of the United States Code. Prospective bidders 

can read the certification through a link provided in the sales description, and they must 

sign the certification prior to submitting a bid. On March 2, 2010, GSA notified buyers 

of travel trailers reminding them of the requirements of the certification. As GSA 

becomes aware of any possible violations, it refers them to GSA's Inspector General for 

investigation. 

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 their 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. 

- 6 -
27 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
28 

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:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
29 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 34 here 76569A.011

Testimony of James J. Jones 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

before the 

Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

April 28, 2010 

Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's efforts on formaldehyde and potential legislative action in Congress. 

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 byproduct of combustion. In homes, the most significant current sources of formaldehyde are 

likely to be pressed wood products made using adhesives that contain urea-formaldehyde (UF) 

resins. Pressed wood products made for indoor use include particleboard, plywood, and 

fiberboard. 1 

Inhalation of formaldehyde can cause irritation ofthe eyes, nose, throat, and skin, as 

well as inflammation and damage to the upper-respiratory tract2

, depending on both the level 

and length of exposure. Additionally, there is some new evidence that formaldehyde exposure 

may impact pulmonary function, and increase respiratory symptoms, asthma, and allergic 

sensitization in children.3 There is evidence that some people can develop sensitivity to 

formaldehyde. 4 In 1989, EPA classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen. At that 

1 Formaldehyde Emissions From Pressed Wood Products, Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 73 FR 73620, 

at 73622 (December 3, 2008) 

2 ATSDR ToxFAQs, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfactslll.html; OSHA Safety Fact Sheet, http://www.oshasafety. 

org/osha_formaldehyde.asp 

3 McGwinn, Gerald. Jr, Jeffrey Liener, and John I Kennedy Jr., Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 188 

(Number 3), March 2010. 

4 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde. 1999. 
30 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 35 here 76569A.012

time, there was "sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in humans" from a set of 

28 epidemiology studies.s 

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. 6 

EPA recognizes that since 1989 there has been additional research into the health 

effects of formaldehyde. EPA is currently engaged in a reassessment of the potential cancer 

and non-cancer risks of formaldehyde that will be entered into the EPA's Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) program. As part of the IRIS reassessment process, EPA will be 

reexamining its conclusions regarding the cancer risk of formaldehyde inhalation after 

considering the currently available scientific information, including human data. EPA will also 

be evaluating the non-cancer health effects of inhalation of formaldehyde. 

At this time, EPA is conducting an interagency science consultation on the draft 

formaldehyde assessment, as per the IRIS process.7

• The draft assessment has been provided 

to other federal agencies for their review. EPA anticipates 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 (NAS). Because EPA is committed to 

providing a completed health assessment on this important chemical to the American public as 

quickly as possible, EPA has requested that NAS conduct their peer review and provide their 

final report to EPA on an expedited schedule. The first meeting of the NAS will likely focus on 

review of the charge to the panel and to hear presentations on the science, science issues, and 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tplll.htmi 

5 IRIS File for Formaldehyde, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419.htm 

6 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (see 

http://monographs.iarc. fr /ENG/Monographs/voI88/index.ph p and http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Meetings/88-

formaldehyde.pdf ) 

7 New Process for Development of IRIS Assessments, May 20, 2009 (see http://www.epa.gov/iris/process/) 

2 
31 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 36 here 76569A.013

preliminary conclusions included in the draft assessment. The NAS is being asked to provide 

advice to EPA on science issues. Per the expedited schedule, 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 (formerly the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics) resulted in part from a 

March 2008 petition from 25 organizations and approximately 5,000 individuals to adopt the 

California state regulation concerning emissions of formaldehyde from three types of 

composite wood products. The 2007 California regulation requires manufacturers to meet 

formaldehyde emissions standards for certain pressed wood products, including hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. California also requires 

manufacturers to meet formaldehyde emission standards when these pressed wood products 

are offered for sale, sold, supplied, or manufactured for use in California. The regulation also 

requires that compliant products be used in finished goods but does not apply to hardwood 

plywood and particleboard materials installed in manufactured homes subject to u.s. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. 

The petitioners asked EPA to assess and reduce the risks posed by formaldehyde 

emitted from these products by exercising its authority under TSCA section 6 to adopt and 

apply nationally the California formaldehyde emissions regulation for these composite wood 

products; and to extend the regulation to include composite wood products used in 

manufactured homes. 

In response, EPA announced on June 24, 2008, that it was partially granting and 

partially denying the petition. While the Agency denied the specifics of the petition request, 

EPA announced plans to develop and issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

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. 
32 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 37 here 76569A.014

The ANPR was issued on December 3,2008 and describes EPA's initial steps in that 

investigation and requested comment, information, and data relating to formaldehyde 

emissions from pressed wood products. The notice also announced a series of public meetings 

to obtain additional stakeholder input which took place in early 2009. In 2009, the 

Administration conducted an additional meeting in New Orleans to provide an opportunity for 

residents of the so-called "FEMA trailers" to offer their views. 

In addition, EPA anticipates completing an exposure assessment by the Fall of 2010 

which will focus on exposures in communities with environmental justice concerns. In addition, 

EPA has developed an industry survey to characterize the current industry practices, control 

technologies and the extent to which the industry has adopted the California standards. EPA 

anticipates completing this survey in early 2011. 

The point of these efforts is to gain a greater scientific understanding of the potential 

health risks associated with the use of formaldehyde in pressed wood products. In turn, this 

vital information will inform the regulatory approach EPA will take on formaldehyde, as we 

consider whether it is appropriate to use our authority under TSCA to ban or restrict the use of 

formaldehyde in pressed wood products. 

As a general matter, the challenge of regulating chemicals under our current TSCA 

authorities is worth noting. As we have stated in previous hearings, as a result of the legal and 

procedural requirements TSCA places on EPA prior to collecting data, there are large, troubling 

gaps in the available data and state of knowledge on many widely used chemicals in commerce. 

Chemical producers are not required to provide, without further action from EPA, the data 

necessary to fully assess a chemical's risks. In particular, current TSCA authority has made 

EPA's efforts to gather formaldehyde information more burdensome. 

4 
33 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 38 here 76569A.015

In the cases where EPA has adequate data on a chemical and wants to protect the public 

against well-known risks to human health and the environment, there are legal hurdles that 

prevent quick and effective regulatory action. Meanwhile, the public may be exposed to 

chemicals for which we have little understanding of the consequences. 

As has been frequently cited, after years of study, EPA issued a rule in 1989 phasing out 

most uses of asbestos - a chemical whose health effects had been exhaustively studied and 

that had been demonstrated to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis in humans. 

Yet, a Federal court overturned the rule because EPA failed to clear the hurdles imposed under 

TSCA before existing chemical risks can be controlled. In regards to formaldehyde, the Agency 

noted in its 2008 ANPR that, 

On the basis of the significant differences in the legal standards applicable to the 

California Health and Safety Code (H&Sq and TSCA section 6, and the insufficiency of 

the information available to EPA for purposes of conducting the TSCA section 6 analysis, 

EPA is not granting the specific request in the petition to commence a proceeding under 

TSCA section 6 to impose the CARB formaldehyde ATCM nationwide. Even if the 

information available to EPA were sufficient to support an evaluation of whether 

formaldehyde in composite wood products presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk, petitioners have not provided sufficient information, and EPA does not otherwise 

have sufficient information, to evaluate whether the CARB ATCM would likely be the 

least burdensome alternative necessary to protect adequately against such risk. 

This finding illustrates the inherent difficulties the Agency faces in regulating chemicals under 

TSCA. 

EPA currently anticipates being able to make a determination on pursuing regulatory 

action in 2011. If EPA has the information and data necessary to propose a new regulation at 

that time, a final rule could be anticipated one to three years later, depending on the 
34 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 39 here 76569A.016

comments we receive and the additional analysis and consultations which may be required in 

order to finalize the final rule. 

Restoring confidence in our chemical management system is a top priority for EPA and 

an environmental priority for the Obama Administration. This 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 chemicals 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 also have clear authority to establish safety standards that are 

based on scientific risk assessments and take risk management actions when chemicals do not 

meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, 

including children's health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns. 

The recent introduction of the 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. These two 

pieces of legislation are both major steps forward in the effort to protect American families and 

consumers from harmful chemicals. We look forward to working with Congress to reform 

TSCA. 

EPA agrees with this Committee that formaldehyde is a hazardous chemical and 

supports the goal of legislation in reducing the risks from formaldehyde in pressed wood 

products. Reducing formaldehyde emissions in pressed wood products should be an important 

public health goal. California has made a valuable contribution to formaldehyde emissions 

reductions through its standards and is providing a possible model for addressing this problem. 

We look forward to working with this Committee as it moves forward to reduce exposure to 

formaldehyde from these products. It is our hope that Congress will also be able to act on TSCA 

reform, since the Administration believes it is important to work together to quickly modernize 

and strengthen the tools available in TSCA. 

6 
35 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 40 here 76569A.017

Thank you for the opportunity to present EPA's views, and I am happy to answer any 

questions the Subcommittee may have. 

7 
36 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
37 

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:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
38 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 44 here 76569A.018

STATEMENT OF 

STEVEN KEMPF 

(ACTING) COMMISSIONER 

FEDERAL ACQUISTION SERVICE 

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 
39 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 45 here 76569A.019

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's 

hearing. I am Steven Kempf, from the General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

I am the Acting Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). 

FAS provides acquisition and logistics services to Federal agencies, 

including services managed by our Office of Personal Property 

Management for the disposal of personal property. Generally speaking, 

"personal property" is defined as any property except buildings, 

structures, and land, agency records, and naval vessels. And, disposal 

refers to the reuse of personal property by means of federal transfers from 

one agency to another, donations to states and eligible non-profit 

organizations, and sales, the service that GSA provides to Federal 

agencies that have surplus and/or exchange/sale property they are willing 

to sell to the public. 

As provided in Title 40 of the United States Code and implemented by the 

Federal Management Regulations (FMR), federal agencies are required to 

report excess personal property to GSA's Office of Personal Property 

Management for screening and redistribution to other federal agencies. 

Personal property is reported to GSA through GSAXcess®, a web based 

program that is also used by our customers to screen and select needed 

property. Once reported, this property is normally offered for screening for 

21 calendar days. Excess personal property which is not selected for 

transfer within the Federal government is declared to be surplus at the 

conclusion of the screening period and can be transferred under the 

Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program to the State Agency 

for Surplus Property (SASP) in each State, territory, and the District of 

Columbia. The SASPs are established under Title 40 of the 

U.S. Code. 

Surplus property not selected for donation is offered for public sale. 

Property selected for replacement under the exchange/sale authority can 

be offered for public sale as well. The exchange/sale authority (40 U.S.C. 

503) allows agencies to sell property and use the sale proceeds to acquire 

similar property. Exchange/sale property is not surplus property as 

agencies continue to need such property but agencies may sell such 

property to offset the cost of procuring the replacement property. 

The Office of Personal Property Management's Sales Program is an 

approved Sales Center under the Federal Asset Sales Program (eFAS), one 

of the initial e-government initiatives. GSA is the only Sales Center 

approved for nationwide activity for all commodity groups and for all 

methods of sale. Surplus and exchange/sale property as well as forfeited, 

property are offered for competitive sales to the general public, most 
40 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 46 here 76569A.020

commonly through GSA Auctions®, our internet auction site. All GSA 

sales, whether on the Internet, live auctions, or other methods, are listed on 

GovSales.gov, the eFAS central portal for all government sales. By 

regulation, Federal agencies must use an approved Sales Center for their 

public sales. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has 

selected GSA as its Sales Center. 

Regarding the recent auctions of the FEMA owned temporary housing units 

(THUs) by the GSA; GSA acted as the sales agent for FEMA in these 

auctions and FEMA retained physical custody and ownership of these 

units. We conducted the sales through GSA Auctions® selling travel 

trailers, manufactured housing (mobile homes) and park models, as single 

units and small and large multiple lots, ranging from as few as 10 units to 

recent sales of over 22,000 in one lot. As we do with all of our customer 

agencies, we provide full and complete descriptions, including known 

deficiencies, if such information is provided by the owning agency. 

The first THU sales in Significant quantities, post Hurricane Katrina, began 

in 2007. GSA was not involved in the initial procurement of these items; as 

such, we do not know which units were specifically purchased for 

Hurricane Katrina relief, Hurricane Rita relief, or any other subsequent 

disaster. After learning about questionable formaldehyde levels, 

particularly with the travel trailers, GSA coordinated with FEMA to develop 

a certification statement to inform purchasers of the potential 

formaldehyde levels and other restrictions on the use of the units as 

housing and GSA's requirement that purchasers pass on these notices to 

any subsequent buyers or recipients. 

The certification statement for purchasers of travel trailers is a binding 

document and is made in accordance with and subject to the penalties of 

Title 18, Section 1001, the United States Code, Crime and Criminal 

Procedures. Prospective bidders were provided a link in each sales listing, 

where they are required to read and certify acceptance prior to being able 

to submit a bid. On March 2, 2010, GSA sent an electronic mail message to 

buyers of travel trailers reminding them of the requirements of the 

certification. At times when GSA becomes aware of any violations, we 

refer them to GSA's Office of Inspector General (IG) for investigation. 

GSA's Office of Personal Property Management has forwarded the name of 

one buyer to the IG for investigation for such alleged violations. 

There were no restrictions on continued use of the usable manufactured 

housing units because they were built to standards established by the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which are included 

in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). There are restrictions placed on 

manufactured housing units sold as scrap. 

2 
41 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 47 here 76569A.021

GSA also placed the health warning notice from the HUD regulations, 

which is applicable to the sale of new manufactured housing units, in each 

sales listings. 

There are no specific, special requirements for sales of THUs. The Federal 

Property Management Regulation, 41 CFR 101-42, "Utilization and Disposal 

of Hazardous Materials and Certain Categories of Property", addresses 

special requirements for disposal processing of specified categories of 

items requiring special handling. FEMA did not identify the THUs as falling 

under any of these identified categories, such as being a hazardous 

material, a munitions list item, or an item containing asbestos, so no 

special requirements were applicable. GSA agreed that the THUs did not 

fall within the parameters for any of these special commodities and the 

corresponding special requirements. 

We recently completed the sales of the remaining significant inventory held 

by FEMA. At the end of January, the majority of the remaining units, a total 

of 101,802 units, were sold as 11 lots via GSA Auctions®. Most sales have 

been successfully completed with the exception of three where the 

successful bidder defaulted on his contract. Two of the lots have been 

successfully reoffered for sale and FEMA has elected not to re-offer the 

units at the remaining site. Instead, FEMA has determined they are excess 

and are being offered for transfer to other Federal activities or then to State 

Agencies for Surplus Property through the Federal Surplus Personal 

Property Donation Program. 

The other sales have been approved by the Department of Justice, as their 

sales proceeds exceeded our $3,000,000 single award authority, and each 

has been paid in full with removal process ready to begin. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to the Honorable members of 

this committee. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

3 
42 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
43 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
44 

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 AccountVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:31 Jan 10, 2013 Jkt 076569 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A569.XXX A569

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
45 

ability 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? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
46 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
47 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
48 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
49 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
50 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
51 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
52 

[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:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
53 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 59 here 76569A.022

ABOUT RENAISSANCE VILLAGE 

Gabriel Chasnoff 

NT! Upstream 

ltl1:1f.BLLypst ream, (,!2!J1 

gchasnoff@ntiupstream.com 

www.rvthefilm com 

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak about my film, Renaissance 

Village. It is not likely a film you will have seen on the shelves at Blockbuster or for 

download on Netflix. In fact, Renaissance Village has not received distribution through 

any major film company. When I asked these companies why they decided to pass on the 

film, the answer was always the same: because people don't care any more about 

Hurricane Katrina and formaldehyde poisoning in the 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 eighteen months from January 2007 to June 2008 and focuses on five 

residents desperately trying to reassemble their lives after losing nearly everything in the 

storms. 

My production crew and I stumbled upon Renaissance Village by chance while traveling 

with the mobile care clinics provided by the Children's Health Fund of New York. After 

speaking with some of the park's residents, I knew that their stories needed to be told, 

and decided to shift the focus of our film from examining the post-Katrina healthcare 

situation in Louisiana to life inside a FEMA trailer park. At that time no one in the 

media, government, or inside the park was talking about formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. 

But amid the chaos of being displaced from their homes for nearly two years, losing 

nearly all of their personal belongings in the storms, and having to navigate their way 

through layer upon layer of government bureaucracy to receive the benefits they were 

promised, residents in Renaissance Village were hit with more bad news: their 

government-provided trailers were unsafe to live in and posed a serious threat to their 

health. I was an eyewitness to the transformation many residents experienced as they 

went from victims of a natural disaster to victims of federal negligence. Many of them 

expressed to me feeling like the bastard child that no one wanted, that no one cared for; 

like they were "lost at the Red Sea and waiting for it to open up." 

Emails pertaining to the presence and dangers of formaldehyde in the trailers, revealed 

during the July 2007 government oversight committee hearing led by Congressman 

Henry Waxman of California, signified the deceptive posture taken by FEMA. Lawyers 

told their field staff, "Do not initiate any testing until we give you the OK .... Once you 

get results, should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to 

respond to them." Another cmail from the Office of General Council "advised that we 

do not do testing, which would imply FEMA's ownership of this issue." These emails 

only reinforced the blow sustained by park residents. The government knew about the 

formaldehyde and its danger and chose silence over helping residents, for fear of getting 

a black eye. 

On July 9, 2008, FEMA distributed a press release entitled "FEMA Statement on 

Formaldehyde" (http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=44961), which 
54 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 60 here 76569A.023

Gabriel Chasnoff 

NT! Upstream 

1r.l1'l.£J1fiUpsfr(,om c(lm 

gchasnojJ@ntiupstream.com 

www.rvthefilm.com 

acknowledged that the agency would test trailers in all the parks. In addition FEMA 

established a call center to take questions and distributed 70,000 leaflets to occupants of 

FEMA trailers. Though these are honorable measures to take after exposing thousands of 

American citizens to a known carcinogen, I never.witnessed any FEMA representative 

talking one-on-one, in detail, with any of the residents about the formaldehyde issue. I 

did see FEMA fliers taped to trailer doors that defined formaldehyde and the symptoms 

of exposure and advised residents on how to protect themselves. 

Residents received the majority of their information about the formaldehyde issue from 

local and national news television. This created even more panic and fear. Residents had 

no one easily accessible and in person to tum to for reliable answers to their questions 

and concerns. Had FEMA taken the extra effort to go door to door and actually ask 

residents if they were OK, a lot offear and ill will could have been spared. As one 

resident, Paul Thomas, states in the film, "I have never heard of a FEMA representative 

corne back here on this property and corne to each individual and let us know that this is 

what is going to happen. It's always hearsay and 95% of the time, it never happens." 

To be fair, FEMA established a hotline that trailer residents could call for support; 

however, this method of seeking answers proved ridiculously frustrating. Two scenes in 

the film convey this experience. In the first, one resident, James, attempts to contact 

FEMA after the agency fails to arrive in the park to test trailers for formaldehyde. After 

talking with the FEMA agent on the phone for several minutes she gives him another 

number to call- the same one he has just dialed. After James informs her of this he is 

put on hold and eventually is disconnected. In a later scene, resident Tyronne Creesy is 

trying to contact FEMA about his hotel arrangements after he has relinquished his trailer 

with the understanding that he will receive a free 30-day stay in a hotel. Again, FEMA 

has no record of this arrangement, and he is given the runaround. Tyronne ends up 

sleeping at a friend's house for an extended period and then has to move back to 

Shreveport to live with his father. Tyronne is forty ycars old. 

During a park-wide council meeting, Wilbert Ross, the unofficial president of 

Renaissance Village, summed up the residents' outrage succinctly and directly for 

everyone to hear. "As a people we need to corne together and demand that they [FEMA] 

take care of our health -long-term. We are a people forgotten ... The majority of you, 

98% that are in trailers, also are black, andlor poor American citizens. Either one means 

the same to your government: you can't help him, he don't think about helping you." 

Though FEMA did, in fact, offer residents 30-90 day stays in hotel rooms to vacate the 

formaldehyde-tainted trailers, this did not quell residents' fears about the long-term 

effects of their exposure to the carcinogen. In a candid interview, Wilbert Ross admits 

that he advised other residents to tum down FEMA's offer. "They go out the gate, get 

their apartment, FEMA takes care of them ... and then cut them loose. They're on their 

own on their own with their health, on their own with everything. When it comes down 

to your medical, with the effects that it's [formaldehyde] been having on peoples' bodies 
55 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 76569A.024

Gabriel ChasnojJ 

NT! Upstream 

liJ.81' ntiul1::\'rreaJl1,J:oll{ 

gchasnojJ@ntiupstream.com 

www.rvlhefilm.com 

back here, I think FEMA should be responsible and I think they [the residents] should be 

holding out until they're sure that FEMA is going to cover." 

The discovery of fonnaldehyde in the trailers created more panic, confusion, hurt, and 

fear in my view, than the storms themselves. The hurricanes were tangible and visceral -

they left a visible path of destruction. One could witness, mourn, and recover from these 

losses. The trailers, on the other hand, were alive with an "invisible killer." Every 

breath left trailer occupants wondering if that breath were going to contribute to their 

demise 5, 10, or 30 years down the road. Long-term effects of formaldehyde have been 

linked to nose, lung, and other types of upper respiratory cancer. FEMA knew about the 

problem and made a conscious choice to do nothing. As a daily witness to the lives of 

residents inside Renaissance Village, I can tell you that this made them feel cheated and 

expendable, like animals in a grand experiment in which their lives meant nothing. 

FEMA's offer to relocate the residents only made some residents more suspicious: Was 

this an attempt to push trailer residents out of the system after 90 days and refute any 

future responsibility for medical problems that residents might have? As I will talk about 

later, this distrust of the government was not so much a result of eighteen months of 

working with FEMA, but rather based on decades of racial and socioeconomic injustice 

experienced by those living in the park. 

It is important to point out that I tried to keep the story told in Renaissance Village as 

objective as possible.. My goal in creating this film was not to placate the federal 

government or the park residents. When I told people in Baton Rouge and Baker, 

Louisiana, why I was living in their city and what I was working on, I was more often 

than not met with degrading, racially charged accusations similar to what one might hear 

thrown at an ACLU member visiting the Jim Crow south during the 1950s and 60s. 

Many Baton Rouge and Baker residents expressed feelings of confusion: Why were the 

residents of Renaissance Village not doing more to help themselves? Why did the park's 

residents not feel the same obligation to find work like everyone else? 

And there is some truth to this; many of the park residents that I met simply sat around 

waiting to be told what to do by FEMA. Many expressed the sentiment that they were 

owed by the government, not only for losses and damages sustained during and after the 

storm, but for decades of neglect. On the other hand, there were those in the park who 

tried their best to get back on their feet on their own terms, without taking any, what they 

would consider, "handouts," from the government. One man I met woke at 4 a.m. every 

morning, took a 90 minute bus ride to New Orleans, worked all day, returned to his 

FEMA trailer at 7 p.m., and repeated the process six days a week. 

My filming in Renaissance Village corresponded with the initial expiration of the 

Stafford Act, the federal legislation created to assist victims of disasters. As you know, 

this legislation limits the provision of housing for disaster victims to 18 months. FEMA 

extended this deadline indefinitely to give residents more time to find permanent housing. 

At this point, a year and a half after the storms, those that were able to leave Renaissance 

Village were long gone. Those remaining had nowhere to go and no resources to fall 
56 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 76569A.025

Gabriel ChasnojJ 

NT! Upstream 

1m!!' ntiY16.'ljEf ..PlllJ;QJLl 

gchasnojJ@)ntiupstream,com 

www.rvthejiim.com 

back on. As Wilbert Ross says in the film, "The people that could get out - gone -

already gone. Not coming back. The folks that are here, most ofthem are stuck, without 

a hope or a prayer." The feeling inside the park shifted, from a transitional community to 

a permanent home. 

Before the storm, many of the residents were receiving federal welfare and experienced 

subsistence-style living that created a dependence on the government. This dependence 

was reinforced and exacerbated after the storms when citizens were moved into federal 

housing. When they didn't get the things from the government they were used to 

receiving, many residents simply shut down: fear, anxiety, and depression took over. 

Substance abuse rates skyrocketed. I remember meeting people who were so depressed 

that they left their trailers only to get food from whichever private organization was 

distributing it that day. 

The film brings to light some important facts about the population living in Renaissance 

Village. Approximately 65% of the park's residents were unemployed, and nearly all of 

those who remained in the park were African American. Eighty percent had lived 

beneath the poverty line in some of the poorest neighborhoods in New Orleans. In the 18 

months since the storm, those neighborhoods had not been rebuilt. 

To make matters worse, no general or mental health facilities existed on the premises. 

The only on-site eare was provided by private organizations such as The Children's 

Health Fund, who would drive Greyhound-style buses onto the premises and provide 

medical and mental health care out of the back of the bus. People would have to wait in 

line in the 100 degree summer heat to be seen by a doctor or mental health worker. If 

additional tests were needed, park residents had to find private transportation into town. 

Most residents didn't have cars. In New Orleans, many of the park's residents had 

depended on public transportation to shuttle them around town. Public transportation like 

this didn't exist in Baker, the nearest town, two miles away. Without private 

transportation, residents had to wait for the FEMA provided bus that would only arrive 

every couple hours and was often grossly off schedule. Health care was hard to come by. 

And if residents found employment, it usually didn't last very long because without 

reliable transportation they would repeatedly be late to work and subsequently fired 

The living eonditions in Renaissance Village were appalling. Every gentle breeze 

brought with it the pungent odor of cow manure from the surrounding pastures. The lack 

of trees or natural growth on park grounds made it impossible to escape the scorching 

sun. Temperatures would often rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer, 

forcing people to stay in their trailers. This became a major source of anxiety and 

psychological trauma for residents once they learned about the toxic levels of 

formaldehyde present in their trailers. Residents felt like they were being forced to 

choose between staying cool in their trailers while risking their health, or staying outside 

exposed to the sun and heat. FEMA's recommendation to residents was to keep trailer 

doors and windows open to vent the formaldehyde, but that prevented people from being 
57 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 76569A.026

Gabriel Chasnoff 

NT! Upstream 

.l1.:.lJ:lL!l1il!J2:ilrea}l1_mJB 

gchasnoi!@ntiupstream com 

www.rvlhefilm.com 

able to cool units with air conditioning. As one resident described it, the experience of 

living in the trailers was like slowly being poisoned by "a silent ghost." 

One day I traveled with some residents to the local Walmart where they were going to be 

doing their grocery shopping. The process required extraordinary timing on the 

residents' part. For example, if the bus were scheduled to arrive in two hours to pick up 

residents from Walmart, they would have to time when to buy their meat and dairy 

products so that the groceries wouldn't rot in the sun while waiting for the bus. If they 

were late coming out, they would miss the bus and their food would go bad waiting for 

the next bus. If the bus were late, they would be waiting outside and their food would go 

bad. Countless times I witnessed the slow curdling of milk as it went from liquid to solid 

in the Louisiana sun. This, to me, came to represent Renaissance Village and the people 

living there - the slow deterioration of a community that was waiting for something that 

never really came safety, security, peace of mind, a sense of direction, a return to their 

former lives. 

All ofthe instances noted above were compounded by an already existing sense of being 

wronged by the government: decades of racism, neglect, impoverishment, and socioeconomic isolation hardened into feelings of dejection and worthlessness. In an intimate 

scene in the film, Gwendolyn Allen and Thelma Howard share with us their experiences 

growing up in the Jim Crow south. "Children today, they got it good. They don't know 

what hunger is and how back in the fifties, you know, things weren't straight then. They 

had racism, they had a little bit of everything ... Like we are today, we can stand and talk, 

white and black, back then you couldn't do all that. You had to say 'yes sir', 'yes 

ma'am" 'no ma'am', 'yes sir' ... " says Gwendolyn. Thelma inteljects. "I was from 

Mississippi in the fifties. I've seen some things I don't even care to mention ... " She 

continues to tell the story of when her uncle was lynched and his body thrown in her front 

yard, "and you could see where the rope was around his neck." 

The residents of Renaissance Village were not simply people in need of disaster 

assistance - the residents needed reassurance that their existence mattered to their 

government, to their neighbors, and to the American people. They needed to know that 

someone cared about them. After hanging a formaldehyde tester on his ceiling to test the 

levels of the toxin in his unit, Wilbert Ross sits exhausted on his bed as he reflects, "We 

learned not to trust FEMA on anything that they say. Tfthey can't put it in writing, we 

don't want it because they're liars. Everything they tell us is Iies ... They lied to the 

public, they lied to the media, you know what I'm saying? And at the same time we are 

supposed to just turn our backs and look the other way and keep going you cannot do 

that. These folks don't forget. Ijust feel like we're a part that's always been on the 

downside of America. That we're the ones that have been least respected by America. 

No matter what we do we never come up to fit their standards. No matter how much 

money you have, how much education you have, you still looked down on because of 

your skin color." This is the real story of Renaissance Village. 
58 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
59 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
60 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hebert follows:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
61 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 67 here 76569A.027

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

"Public Sales of Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: Are they Safe or 

Environmental Time Bombs?" 

Rayburn House Office Building 

Room 2322 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 

Good morning and thank you for allowing me speak to this esteemed group about such an 

emotionally charged and seemingly controversial issue. I say seemingly controversial 

because from my perspective as a well-respected physician and investigative reporter, it 

should not be controversial at all. The facts supporting halting the sale ofFEMA trailers 

are very straightforward and easily understood. 

Background: 

I am currently Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Tulane University Medical Center, 

where I serve as a Pediatrician and Pediatric Emergency Room physician. I have 

conducted over 75,000 office visits. I have completed over 60 clinical trials for many 

different companies and agencies. I am currently the Chief Medical Officer for Louisiana 

Recovery School District, which encompasses over 100 schools, as well as the Medical 

Director for Dillard University. I am the Chief Medical Editor for WDSU-TV, the NBC 

affiliate for the gulf coast, where I am on-air daily, reporting on health topics and 

presenting investigative reports on current health issues. I also am a contributor for the 

Discovery Channel. I have held many federal appointments including board member of 

the Executive Council of the National Health Service Corps. 

I have many vocations in the New Orleans area and I was living there before, during and 

after Hurricane Katrina. In fact, my practice was only closed from August 26, 2005 

through September 27, 2005. My 30 day closure seemed like a year to me. However, 

when we reopened, (we sustained no danlage) myself and my partner were the only 

pediatricians practicing in New Orleans for many months. Therefore, I am one of very 

few people that possess the pure, untainted knowledge of the chronology of what actually 

happened to my very fragile community when exposed to the increased levels of 

formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. 

Many of my patients who were placed in FEMA trailers initially reported the symptoms 

of nasal congestion and nasal burning, watery and stinging eyes. Some of these patients 

were atopic prior to placement, meaning that they were prone to allergic symptoms. 

However, I am referring to the patients who were not atopic prior to placement in the 

FEMA trailers. In these particular patients, symptoms usually progressed and worsened 

with more exposure to formaldehyde. The most important variable of this observation is 
62 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 68 here 76569A.028

that all ofthe symptoms were novel in these patients. These patients NEVER had any 

symptoms of this type. Over time, prolonged exposure resulted in chronic conditions 

like bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and neurological problems. Presence of the gas also 

afiected the skin and resulted in rash or chronic skin irritation. I have had the 

aformentioned experience with over 500 patients. 

Children are most at risk for this toxicity and may succumb sooner to effect of gas 

exposure due to many reasons as delineated below: 

• Children have a greater surface to mass ratio in their lungs therefore absorb more 

toxin 

• Children have a increased respiratory rate 

• Children spend more time at home 

• Children have primitive metabolic systems that may not enable them to clear 

absorbed formaldehyde efficiently 

• Formaldehyde is a relatively heavy gas so it settles closer to the ground which is 

nearer to children's height. 

Moreover, since this chemical is a knO\\TI carcinogen, exposure on a regular basis poses 

risk for development of cancer. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency presently 

classifies formaldehyde as Class Bl-" ... a probable human carcinogen ... " The 

International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde as Group 1-

" ... sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in humans ... " In as much as this is compelling, 

it is a reality for many residents of the gulf coast of the United States. As Americans, we 

should not relegate the remainder of our citizens to this type of exposure. With the sale of 

FEMA trailers to citizens throughout the U.S., the problem changes from a regional one 

to a national issue. 

The Centers for Disease Control released a very concise document on their findings 

gather over 3 years of research in June 2008. I have included the pertinent information 

below: 

The testing of FEMA trailers was one of several actions CDC initiated in response to a request from FEMA 

to investigate concerns about fonnaldehyde in occupied FEMA trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi. CDC 

randomly selected 519 trailers for testing from FEMA's database of all existing occupied trailers. These 

results represent only that group. These 519 trailers represent a cross-section of the most frequently used 

trailer types and manufacturers. CDC has completed analysis of the data from the testing and released its 

final report, which includes those findings with significant implications for public health, 

Key Findings 

In many trailers, mobile homes, and park models tested, fonnaldehyde levels were elevated 

relative to typical levels of US indoor exposure. 

Average levels offonnaldehyde in all units was about 77 parts per hillion (Ppb). This level is 

higher than US background levels, Levels measured ranged from 3 ppb to 590 ppb. 

• These measured levels are likely to under-represent long-tenn exposures since formaldehyde 

levels tend to be higher in newer travel trailers and mobile homes and during warmer weather. 

• Indoor temperature was a significant factor for formaldehyde levels in this study independent of 

trailer make or model, 
63 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 69 here 76569A.029

Fonnaldehyde levels varied by model (mobile homes, park homes, and travel trailers), but all 

types of trailers tested had some high levels. 

• At the levels seen in many trailers, health could be affected. 

Other factors such as humidity, temperature, presence of more than I square foot of mold, and 

ventilation - are associated with fonnaldehyde levels. 

• About 113 (29%) of the trailers did not have a working smoke detector. 

Recommendations for Public Health Officials 

These conclusions affirm CDC's previous recommendation to move quickly to relocate trailer 

residents before the warmer weather of summer, placing highest priority on those who are 

symptomatic and/or especially vulnerable. 

• Appropriate follow-up will require multi-agency collaboration including FEMA, HUD, CDC, and 

others, to achieve safe, healthy housing for people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who 

continue to live in FEMA-supplied travel trailers and mobile homes_ 

FEMA should 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 residence in FEMA-supplied travel trailers or mobile homes and 

fonnaldehyde exposurc. 

• FEMA should consider establishing a registry and long-tenn health monitoring of children and 

others who resided in FEMA-supplied travel trailers and mobile homes in the Gulf Coast Region. 

Recommendations for Residents 

Families who live in FEMA-suppJied travel trailers and mobile homes should spend as much time 

outdoors in fresh air as possible. 

• Open windows as much as possible to let in fresh air. 

• Try to maintain the tempcrature inside travel trailers and mobile homes at the lowest comfortable 

level. 

Do not smoke, and especially do not smoke indoors. 

If you have health concerns, see a doctor or another medical professional. 

• Families that include children, the elderly. and those with chronic diseases such as asthma should 

make a special effort to get as much fresh air as possible, and these families should make 

relocating to pennanent housing a priority. 

Further CDC Action 

In February 2008, CDC notified participants in the study of these results, with personal visits and 

a hand-delivered letter. 

• In February and March 2008, CDC conducted public availability sessions in both Louisiana and 

Mississippi to provide infonnation to other concerned and interested individuals. 

• CDC's 24-hour, toll-free hotline will continue to respond to health-related questions from 

residents. 

• CDC is continuing several studies of unoccupied trailers to assess fonnaldehyde levels across 

different models and types and to identity factors that reduce or raise those levels. This also 

involves identitying cost-effective ways to reduce fonnaldehyde levels and concentrations in 

trailers. 

• CDC is developing a protocol for a long-tenn study of children who resided in FEMA-supplied 

travel trailers and mobile homes in Mississippi and Louisiana. 

CDC is providing educational materials and infonnation to trailer residents about their risk of 

exposure to formaldehyde and ways to improve indoor air quality and health. 
64 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 70 here 76569A.030

Summary 

When these trailers were constructed, vague government specifications were 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, 

manufacturers sped up production and widened their profit margins by using substandard 

materials and cutting comers on safety. But in a broader sense, the extremely high 

percentage of trailers found in tests to have excessive formaldehyde levels suggest that 

the toxicity in the FEMA units are more an industry rule than an exception. 

Basically, the public health catastrophe now occurring among the post-Katrina population 

is an expression of the plight of the poorest sections of the working class throughout the 

country, who live in substandard housing, suffer higher exposure to pollutants and toxins 

in their home environments, and develop cancer at higher rates. This group is constantly 

disenfranchised by the courts, refused compensation and medical aid for illnesses, and die 

younger of preventable ailments. In many instances they are victims of industry and a 

government incapable or unwilling to regulate it. 

On a very personal note one of my closest and dearest friends held a very coveted job as a 

jazz singer in New Orleans, Louisiana. She moved into her FEMA provided trailer and 

she was very happy to do so. However, after living in the trailer for approximately 6 

months she was unable to carry a note. She had nosebleeds, watery eyes and signs of 

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. She no longer has the ability to sing which has 

made her severely depressed but moreover has precluded her from earning a living. 

Furthermore she has gotten progressively more short of breath even though she vacated 

the trailer more than 2 yrs ago. One may call this anecdotal however it is the reality of far 

too many gulf coast residents. 

It seems that at this time the prevailing issue is not if formaldehyde is dangerous but 

rather how much is too much. Also, is it irresponsible to sell these trailers to unsuspecting 

individuals that may not be able to afford any other form of housing? In my opinion, the 

answers are as follows: any level of formaldehyde greater than the United States 

background level is unsafe. Secondly, for the United Stated to KNOWINGLY sell an 

unsafe product to consumers is a travesty of justice of epic proportions that only our 

children will realize if the sale continues. Lastly, FEMA must continue to expand 

studies on the effects offormaldehyde on occupants ofFEMA supplied trailers. The 

short term effeets are important to aeertain, however the long term affeets are the most 

important index in revealing the true medical conditions that will evolve from prolonged 

exposure to this toxic chemical. 
65 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 71 here 76569A.031

References 

Final Report on Formaldehyde Levels in FEMA Supplied Travel Trailers, Park Models, 

and Mobile Homes. Centers for Disease Control July 2, 2008 

Flynn, Elizabeth, MD; Matz, Paul, MD; Woolf, Alan, MD; Indoor Air Pollutants 

Affecting Child Health, American College of Medical Toxicology, November 2000 

An Update and Revision of ATSDR's February 2007 Health Consultation: 

Formaldehyde Sampling ofFEMA Temporary Housing Trailers, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

September-October,2006 October 2007 

Mendel, M.l, Indoor Residental Chemical Emissions as Risk Factors for Respiratory and 

Allergic Effects in Children: a review, Indoor Air 2007: 17: 259-277 
66 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
67 

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:] 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
68 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 75 here 76569A.032

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGENCIES FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY 

D/b/a NASASP, Inc. 

Curtis Howard, President 

1924 South 10th Street 

Springfield, Illinois 62703 

E-mail: curtis.howard@iIlinois.gov 

http://www.nasasp.org 

Federal Government Disposal Policies for Travel Trailers and Mobile Homes Continue the 

Mismanagement of Katrina Assets. 

NASASP, Inc Calls on Congress For An Immediate Halt to Failed Policies 

Members ofNASASP, Inc. (NASASP) are the State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs) of the 50 

States, U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia. We represent 67,000 donee organizations 

including villages, towns and townships, counties, 8(a) businesses, public educational institutions, 

public health agencies, public safety (police and fire), libraries, not-for-profit organizations including 

private schools, veteran's homes, senior centers, homeless shelters, food banks, and other eligible 

recipients as determined by Federal law. Our Agencies ensure fair and equitable distribution of Federal 

surplus property. All recipients of the donated property are held accountable under Federal and State 

statutes. We network across the country and the world with our donee organizations through a system 

of communications, warehousing and transportation. We serve the neediest of America's organizations. 

The United States Congress fulfills its responsibility under the United States Constitution to "make all 

needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States." In the 

exercise of this authority, Congress has passed laws about property designed to serve the best interests 

of the citizens. These laws are based on the premise that the public is the actual owner of Govemment 

property and Federal agencies that hold and utilize such property are merely custodians of it. 

Consequently, personal property management laws require Federal agencies to transfer excess personal 

property to other Federal agencies as the highest utilization of such property. When no Federal need is 

expressed, the next highest priority is to transier the property and continue its public use through the 

SASPs. This system has served the public well for many years, allowing the property to continue to 

serve the public throughout its useful life. 

-1-
69 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 76 here 76569A.033

FEMA Travel Trailers and Mobile Homes Equal Tax Payer Assets 

Recently the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) at the request of Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), placed over 100,00 units of tax-payer property in the form of travel 

trailers and mobile homes onto their auction site known as GSA Auctions. These units were first 

constructed for use on the Gulf Coast of the United States after the hurricane disaster known as Katrina 

and subsequently the hurricane disaster known as Rita. Hundreds of thousands of units were 

constructed in a short time frame and sent to the Gulf Coast. Still hundreds of thousands more were 

staged for use around the United States in case of further need. 

Following the aftermath of Katrina and Rita hundreds of unused travel trailers and mobile homes were 

sold for FEMA by GSA using GSA Auctions. In December 2005 a meeting was held at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia between representatives ofNASASP, GSA, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the Defense 

Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) and FEMA. It was at this meeting that NASASP 

presented their plan to ask for donations of sUlplus travel trailers and mobile homes and how they 

would be used by our local communities prolonging the life and public use of these items for the U.S. 

Taxpayers. 

Since that meeting over 6500 travel trailers and mobile homes have been provided back to the 

taxpayers who paid for them in the first place in accordance Witll the scope of the Federal Smplus 

Property Program. The most important accomplishment of placing these Ullits was a realization of over 

$80 million in savings to the American Taxpayer. Federal agencies also saved the American Taxpayer 

millions of dollars by the reutilization of many of the FEMA units. FEMA took away the ability of the 

Federal agencies to further save Taxpayer money when they choose to sell these large quantities 

through the use of the Exchange Sale Authority. NASASP believes that the Congressionally approved 

Federal Surplus Donation Program is the best option if these items are not needed for Federal agency 

use. We are asking Congress therefore to stop the mass selling of these items to the public at large for 

the following reasons: 

• NASASP serves the neediest of organizations in the United States 

• During times of disaster whether natural or man-made, before, during and after, we network 

with all states and territories to provide assistance. Having these assets on the ground in our 

states and local communities would negate the immediate need to wait for Federal assistance. In 

a matter of minutes or hours help would be on the way. 

• Warehousing. Many SASPs have warehouses where these assets would be safe and in good care 

if not immediately moved to our donees. In addition our warehouses can and have been used for 

storage of other emergency care items for all types of disasters. 

• Accountability. All SASPs are accoUlltable to not only the Federal govemment but also our 

State govemments. We track where the property is donated for no less then 18 months including 

random periodic visits made to many of the donees to spot check their use. 

• Health and human services. Most SASPs already inspect all travel trailers and mobile homes 

upon donation, many SASPs have purchased testing equipment on their own to stay ahead of 

even Federal requirements. 

• Loss of these units would cause economic hardship to many of our donees, including public 

agencies, non-profit organizations and small minority businesses. Just as the economy starts to 

rebound flooding the market would cost revenues and jobs in many of our communities across 

the United States. 
70 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 77 here 76569A.034

-2-

• Quantity. The SASPs require only a small amount of the total of over 100,000 available units, 

perhaps less then 5%. Since 2006 we have screened available units, taken what was needed for 

donation and then the Federal government has sold the remainder to the public at large. 

NASASP would favor an immediate return to this policy. 

SUMMARY 

We know that the potential for acquiring these units was a tremendous opportunity for our states and 

local communities during these times of economic distress, devastating natural disasters, pandemic 

health issues, home land security concerns and failing infrastrncture in the United States. Previous 

donations of the travel trailers and mobile homes have been used to address all of these concerns. We 

know with over 63 years of experience that there is value to the excess and surplus trailers that were 

staged all across this country. We also know through our experience about many times when American 

Taxpayer property has been left as scrap or sold for just pennies on the dollar like these travel trailers 

and mobile homes are now. 

Although we have been doing the real work for over four years and asking the questions the Federal 

government has not provided us with the service and answers we need to continue to realize the fruition 

of our plans. Indeed they have changed policies over the past four years time and again .. 

NASASP is ready and able to set in motion again our system of selecting and transporting these units 

back to our local communities but we need the assistance from the Federal government. We also need 

Congress to be informed of our concerns and the real possibility offailure without support. NASASP is 

willing to be a full partner in this venture offering our services of warehousing, networking, 

transportation and most importantly accountability to America to take advantage of this opportunity. 

NASASP also requests that we be invited to testify at any and all hearings on this matter, as well as on 

any matter affecting the personal property disposal process. As the sole conduit tor placing Federal 

surplus personal property back into the hands of the American Taxpayers for over 63 years, we are 

singularly well qualified to offer testimony on this subject. 

We will end by signing offwith the motto ofNASASP, Inc for all of of our 63 years and ask again that 

Congress take immediate steps to stop this waste of taxpayer dollars and poor public policy. 

"Pro Bono Publico" 

"For the Good of the public" 

-3-
71 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
72 

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 bimodal 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? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
73 

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 longterm 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
74 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
75 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
76 

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 writVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:31 Jan 10, 2013 Jkt 076569 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A569.XXX A569

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
77 

ing, 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.] 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with