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

40–851 PDF 2008

FEMA’S TOXIC TRAILERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 19, 2007

Serial No. 110–41

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 19, 2007 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Needle, Scott, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics; Mary DeVany,

industrial hygienist, DeVany Industrial Consultants; Paul Stewart,

travel trailer occupant, December 2005 to March 2006; Lindsay

Huckabee, mobile home occupant, December 2005 to present; and

James Harris, Jr., travel trailer occupant, April 2006 to present ............ 112

DeVany, Mary ............................................................................................ 119

Harris, James, Jr. ...................................................................................... 148

Huckabee, Lindsay .................................................................................... 141

Needle, Scott .............................................................................................. 112

Stewart, Paul ............................................................................................. 130

Paulison, R. David, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management

Agency ............................................................................................................ 202

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 109

DeVany, Mary, industrial hygienist, DeVany Industrial Consultants, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 121

Harris, James, Jr., travel trailer occupant, April 2006 to present, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 151

Huckabee, Lindsay, mobile home occupant, December 2005 to present,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 144

Jindal, Hon. Bobby, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Louisiana, prepared statement of ................................................................ 245

Needle, Scott, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 114

Paulison, R. David, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, prepared statement of .................................................................... 205

Stewart, Paul, travel trailer occupant, December 2005 to March 2006,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 134

Yarmuth, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Kentucky, prepared statement of Mr. Carter ......................................... 181

Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of Carlton and Dawn Sistrunk .............................. 164

Prepared statements of Mr. Nelson and Ms. Gillette ............................. 218

Prepared statements of the Manufactured Housing Institute and Lee

Shull ........................................................................................................ 157

(1)

FEMA’S TOXIC TRAILERS

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Towns, Maloney, Cummings,

Davis of Illinois, Clay, Watson, Yarmuth, Braley, Norton, Cooper,

Hodes, Murphy, Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of Virginia, Souder, Platts,

Issa, Westmoreland, Foxx, Sali, and Jordan.

Also present: Representatives Melancon, Jindal, and Taylor.

Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Phil Barnett, staff director and chief counsel; Kristin Amerling, general counsel; Karen

Lightfoot, communications director and senior policy advisor; Greg

Dotson, chief environmental counsel; Erik Jones, counsel; Earley

Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal, deputy clerk; Caren Auchman,

press assistant; Zhongrui ‘‘JR’’ Deng, chief information officer;

Leneal Scott, information systems manager; Kerry Gutknecht and

Will Ragland, staff assistants; David Marin, minority staff director;

Larry Halloran, minority deputy staff director; Jennifer Safavian,

minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Keith

Ausbrook, minority general counsel; Ellen Brown, minority legislative director and senior policy counsel; Steve Castor, minority counsel; John Cuaderes, minority senior investigator and policy advisor;

Patrick Lyden, minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator; Brian McNicoll, minority communications director; Benjamin Chance, minority clerk; and Ali Ahmad, minority staff assistant and online communications coordinator.

Chairman WAXMAN. The meeting of the committee will please

come to order.

Today we begin 2 days of hearings on the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. These hearings are part of a series of hearings in this committee on how to make Government effective again.

In the 1990’s, FEMA was a model Government agency, but, as

Hurricane Katrina showed, cronyism, under-funding, and lack of

leadership turned FEMA into the most ridiculed agency in the Government.

In these hearings we will ask whether FEMA has learned the

lessons of Hurricane Katrina and restored its capacity to protect

the public in disasters. Today we are going to look at a narrow but

telling subject: FEMA trailers that exposed our citizens to danVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

gerous levels of formaldehyde. Then in 2 weeks we will look at the

broader topic of FEMA’s preparedness for the next disaster.

I want to commend our colleague, Ranking Member Tom Davis,

for asking for the preparedness hearing and for his bipartisan approach to these issues.

Americans were repulsed by the indifference and incompetence of

FEMA displayed after Hurricane Katrina. Incredibly, FEMA has

adopted the same attitude in addressing reports of high levels of

formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. The nearly 5,000 pages of documents we have reviewed expose an official policy of premeditated

ignorance. Senior FEMA officials in Washington didn’t want to

know what they already knew, because they didn’t want the moral

and legal responsibility to do what they knew had to be done, so

they did their best not to know. It is sickening, and the exact opposite of what Government should be.

My staff has prepared a briefing memo for Members that describes in detail what we learned from our review of the FEMA

documents, and I ask unanimous consent to include the memo and

the documents it cites in the hearing record. Without objection,

that will be the order.

The FEMA documents depict a battle between FEMA field staff,

who recognized right away that formaldehyde was a serious problem, and FEMA headquarters, particularly FEMA’s lawyers, who

wanted to pretend it didn’t exist.

In March 2006, news articles reported high levels of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. FEMA field staff urged immediate action,

saying, ‘‘This needs to be fixed today. We need to take a proactive

approach.’’ And there is ‘‘immediate need for a plan of action.’’

But when the issue reached FEMA lawyers, they blocked testing

of occupied trailers. One FEMA attorney explained, ‘‘Do not initiate

any testing until we give the OK. Once you get results, the clock

is running on our duty to respond to them.’’

Another FEMA official wrote, ‘‘The Office of General Counsel has

advised we do not do testing, because it would imply FEMA’s ownership of this issue.’’

Early in the process, through the perseverance of a pregnant

mother with a 4-month old child, FEMA did test one occupied trailer. The results showed that their trailer had formaldehyde levels

75 times higher than the maximum workplace exposure levels recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health. Well, the mother evacuated the trailer. FEMA then

stopped testing other trailers, and top officials issued a statement

that said, ‘‘FEMA and industry experts have evaluated the small

number of cases where owners with formaldehyde have been reported, and we are confident there is no ongoing risk.’’ That is

where they stood after they stopped testing the trailers.

In early July 2006, FEMA officials worked with EPA and the

Center for Disease Control to develop a testing protocol for unoccupied trailers that would ‘‘determine formaldehyde concentrations

emanating from the trailer under living conditions.’’ EPA officials

advised FEMA that, ‘‘The levels we find under testing may well be

more than 100 times higher than the health base level.’’

After receiving this report, FEMA responded by changing the

testing protocols. Instead of simulating actual living conditions,

3

which would show high levels of formaldehyde, FEMA directed that

the trailers be tested with their windows open, their ventilation

fans running, and their air conditioning units operating 24 hours

a day. A leading treatise on diagnosing indoor air quality calls testing formaldehyde under these conditions meaningless.

FEMA repeatedly received complaints from occupants about high

formaldehyde levels, including at least two complaints involving

the death of occupants, but the Agency brushed the complaints

aside.

Although 100,000 families have lived in FEMA trailers and manufactured homes, yet the leadership of FEMA refused to take even

the most basic steps to protect them from toxic formaldehyde

fumes. Think about it. Families, thousands of families who faced

the tragedy of Katrina, lost everything, had their lives turned upside down, then got another hit from the Federal Government

when they were put in trailers that had high toxic levels of formaldehyde.

Yesterday, FEMA finally admitted it made a mistake. It announced it would begin a program to test occupied trailers for dangerous levels of formaldehyde. This is exactly what FEMA’s field

staff urged over a year ago, but it took this hearing and the prospect that Director Paulison would face tough questions to stir

FEMA to act yesterday.

FEMA exists to serve the public, but it acts as though protecting

Director Paulison from embarrassment is more important than protecting the health of the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

It is impossible to read these FEMA documents and not be infuriated. Americans don’t mind paying their taxes if they get a Government that works, but when that bargain is broken and tax dollars are squandered and health jeopardized, frustration rises and

trust in Government erodes.

At our last hearing we had Surgeon Generals before us, particularly Surgeon General Carmona, and I said that good oversight

serves two purposes: it should expose Government malfeasance and

point the way toward reform. These are my goals again today.

I know the documents we are releasing and the testimony we

will hear will reveal mistakes and misjudgments. We need to learn

from them to identify what needs to be fixed to protect the health

of thousands of families still living in FEMA trailers almost 2 years

after Hurricane Katrina, and we should do everything we can to

make sure that this disgraceful conduct never happens again.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman and the

information referred to follow:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Chairman WAXMAN. I want to recognize Ranking Member Tom

Davis for his opening statement, and then we will proceed with the

hearing.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me commend Chairman Waxman for agreeing to hold a hearing later this month on disaster preparedness, as well. We wrote

the chairman requesting the hearing, and we appreciate his agreeing to examine where FEMA and DHS stand as we approach the

active part of 2007 hurricane season, August and September. A

hearing on that important topic confirms our shared interest in

conducting important oversight. We are both eager to learn whether, in today’s post-Katrina environment, we are better prepared for

natural or man-made disasters than we were 2 years ago.

Sadly, thousands of displaced residents still occupy Government

property, temporary housing in the Gulf Coast region. Today we

are here to discuss the issue of unsafe levels of formaldehyde in

FEMA trailers.

The Select Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, which I chaired, entitled our final report A Failure of Initiative, because leadership at all levels failed

to get the information they needed and failed to act decisively to

meet the crisis. Among those failures was the inability of FEMA to

provide timely, short-term shelter and adequate long-term housing

to those displaced by the catastrophe.

As part of the Federal Government’s response to Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita, FEMA acquired thousands of manufactured

houses, recreational travel trailers, and larger trailers for use by

the victims on the Gulf Coast. These temporary homes contained

walls, cabinetry, and other components made of particle board and

plywood. The glue or coating used in manufacturing or treating

particle board or plywood often contained formaldehyde, a common

chemical used in many industrial and commercial settings.

A naturally occurring chemical, formaldehyde is also a byproduct

of cigarette smoke. When inhaled in large doses, it can cause extreme discomfort and illness.

Over a year ago FEMA began fielding complaints about noxious

odors emanating from some of the occupied trailers. At that time

I wrote Secretary Chertoff asking about the extent of the problem.

We received assurances the issues were limited to a small number

of units and it was under control.

In August 2006, FEMA communicated to the committee in no uncertain terms the health and safety of inhabitants was driving the

Agency’s response to the formaldehyde complaints. The committee

was told FEMA had partnered with leading Government experts,

both at the EPA and the CDC, to develop a robust testing program

and incident response system.

It now seems that what FEMA told the committee was not completely correct. Apparently, the problem of unsafe formaldehyde

levels in FEMA trailers is more widespread than initially acknowledged, and FEMA’s reaction to the problem was deliberately stunted to bolster the Agency’s litigation position.

New information recently provided to the committee shows these

statements mischaracterized the scope and purpose of FEMA’s actual response to the formaldehyde reports. Recently discovered docVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
108

uments make it appear FEMA’s concerns were legal liability and

public relations, not human health and safety. Decisions about assistance to Gulf Coast residents seem to have been driven by the

desire to limit litigation, even if that meant limiting genuine testing and risk mitigation efforts, as well.

One internal e-mail from June 2006, reported the Agency’s Office

of General Counsel ‘‘has advised that we do not do testing’’ because

this would ‘‘imply FEMA’s ownership of this issue.’’

Another attorney advised, ‘‘Do not initiate any testing until we

give the OK. While I agree we should conduct testing, we should

not do so until we are fully prepared to respond to the results.

Once you get results, and should they indicate some problem, the

clock is running on our duty to respond to them.’’

This information is deeply troubling. FEMA was not forthright

with congressional investigators. It took nearly a year and a threat

of subpoenas for FEMA to produce all the documents the committee requested. After seeing the documents, it is pretty clear why

FEMA tried to hide them behind dubious claims of confidentiality

and privilege.

The information in these documents contradicts what we were

told all along. Holding them back only highlighted their damning

significance. Beyond the litigation-centric process, we have to be

concerned about substantive problems. The causes and effects of

excessive formaldehyde fumes in housing product purchased by the

Federal Government has still not been addressed.

Katrina had many hard lessons to teach. One of them was the

Federal Government’s primary response agency has to be proactive,

nimble, and trusted as the honest broker between Washington and

those at need at the State and local levels. Reading these documents, I am not persuaded FEMA is that agency yet. The noxious

gas in those trailers should have energized FEMA to admit the

problem and solve it, not hide it behind a fog of risk-averse

lawyering.

FEMA’s toxic response to these formaldehyde fumes should energize us to demand accountability and push for the reforms that will

clear the air and improve the Nation’s emergency response capabilities.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

109

110

111

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

Let me ask unanimous consent that Representatives Melancon,

Jindal, and Taylor be permitted to join us at our hearing today,

even though they are not members of the committee. Without objection, we welcome them to our hearing.

I want to welcome our first panel. We are going to hear from Mr.

Paulison after this first panel. We are pleased to have these witnesses who are willing to travel to Washington, DC, to share their

experiences with FEMA’s trailers with this committee. I realize

these experiences have not been pleasant ones, and I thank you all

for being here.

On this first panel we have Dr. Scott Needle. Dr. Needle is a Pediatrician. He obtained his medical degree from Johns Hopkins

University in Baltimore, and until June 2007 Dr. Needle had been

a Pediatrician in Bay St. Louis, MS.

Mary DeVany is an expert in the fields of industrial hygiene and

occupational safety. She has an M.S. in biochemistry from Loyola

University in Chicago, and she is a Certified Safety Professional in

Comprehensive Practices, Certified Hazardous Materials Manager,

and is qualified as an Instructor for OSHA compliance.

Mr. Paul Stewart was an occupant of a FEMA trailer from December 2005 through March 2006. In March 2006 Mr. Stewart was

the first FEMA trailer occupant to discuss formaldehyde levels

publicly.

Lindsay Huckabee and her family have been FEMA mobile home

occupants since December 2005. She continues to reside in a trailer

along with her husband and five children.

James Harris, Jr., is a practicing minister and a small businessman. He and his family have been living in a FEMA trailer since

April 2006.

We want to welcome each of you to our hearing today.

It is the practice of this committee that all witnesses that testify

take an oath, and I would like to ask you if you would stand and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. The record will indicate that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

We are delighted to have you here. If you submitted a statement

to us, that statement will be made part of the record in full. I am

going to have a clock on for 5 minutes, and I would like to ask, if

you could, to try to keep to the 5-minutes. If you run a little over,

that is no problem. There is a little clock there you can see that

is green, and it will turn orange when there is a minute left, and

red when the 5-minutes are up, so you might take a glance over

at it at some point during your comments.

Dr. Needle, why don’t we start with you?

112

STATEMENTS OF SCOTT NEEDLE, M.D., AMERICAN ACADEMY

OF PEDIATRICS; MARY DEVANY, INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST,

DEVANY INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS; PAUL STEWART, TRAVEL TRAILER OCCUPANT, DECEMBER 2005 TO MARCH 2006;

LINDSAY HUCKABEE, MOBILE HOME OCCUPANT, DECEMBER

2005 TO PRESENT; AND JAMES HARRIS, JR., TRAVEL TRAILER OCCUPANT, APRIL 2006 TO PRESENT

STATEMENT OF SCOTT NEEDLE, M.D.

Dr. NEEDLE. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this

opportunity to testify today at this important hearing.

My name is Dr. Scott Needle, and I am proud to represent the

American Academy of Pediatrics. I serve on the Academy’s Disaster

Preparedness Advisory Council. I am also a general pediatrician

who was, until recently, in solo private practice in Bay St. Louis,

MS, an area that experienced some of the worst devastation after

Hurricane Katrina.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has grave concerns regarding all aspects of the current and future health of children on the

Gulf Coast who continue to recover after Katrina. We appreciate

your efforts today to bring attention to the potential risks to children’s health associated with exposure to formaldehyde gas in the

trailers provided by FEMA after the hurricane.

Formaldehyde gas is known to cause a wide range of health effects. The AAP Handbook on Pediatric Environmental Health cautions that ‘‘formaldehyde is a known respiratory irritant in the occupational setting,’’ and warns that it can also be found as an air

pollutant in residential settings.

The Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

[ATSDR], states, ‘‘Children may be more susceptible than adults to

the respiratory effects of formaldehyde. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the relatively

smaller diameter of their airways. Children may be more vulnerable because of relatively increased ventilation per kilogram and

failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed.’’

Studies since 1990 have found higher rates of asthma, chronic

bronchitis, and allergies in children exposed to high levels of formaldehyde. In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, classified formaldehyde as a known carcinogen. The U.S. National Toxicology Program classifies it as ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’

Formaldehyde is used in hundreds of products, but particularly

in the resins used to bond laminated wood products and to bond

wood chips in particle board. Mobile homes and travel trailers,

which have small, enclosed spaces, low exchange rates of air, and

many particle board furnishings, may have much higher concentrations of formaldehyde than other types of homes.

My concern in this issue stems from my experiences in treating

children of Hancock County, MS, during the weeks and months

after Hurricane Katrina. In spring, 2006, certain patterns of illness

emerged among some of my patients. Many children returned repeatedly to my office with symptoms that would not go away or

113

would clear up and them promptly recur—sinus infections, ear infections, cold, and a variety of other respiratory symptoms.

In talking with these families, I found that they shared two common characteristics: first, they were all living in travel trailers provided by FEMA; second, the families reported that these symptoms

started not long after moving into these trailers.

Research revealed my patients’ symptoms were all consistent

with exposure to formaldehyde. At the same time, the Sierra Club

released the results of initial testing, which found 29 out of 31

trailers with elevated levels of formaldehyde over 0.1 parts per million.

Over the subsequent year, I contacted the Mississippi State Department of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

researchers at various Gulf Coast universities, and others to alert

them to the patterns I was seeing. Unfortunately, my efforts did

not lead to any immediate action, and I am, therefore, personally

and professionally grateful to you for bringing attention to this

issue through this hearing.

The American Academy of Pediatrics remains deeply concerned

that Gulf Coast children continuing to reside in FEMA trailers may

have been and may continue to be exposed to levels of formaldehyde that are hazardous to both short-term and long-term health.

The Academy urges FEMA and Federal health agencies to undertake a systematic, scientifically rigorous study of the issue to determine children’s exact exposure levels, correlation with the reported

symptoms, and the practical and concrete steps that can be taken

to safeguard their health.

Furthermore, the Academy urges FEMA to set standards for

formaldehyde levels in trailers purchased by the Agency that are

consistent with the most current science, including an additional

margin of safety that takes into account the special vulnerabilities

of children.

Finally, the Academy encourages FEMA to explore alternative

options for providing short and long-term housing to disaster victims that would pose fewer health risks than the travel trailers

currently occupied since Hurricane Katrina.

The American Academy of Pediatrics commends you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today to call attention to the potential hazards of formaldehyde exposure among Gulf Coast children

residing in the FEMA trailers. We look forward to working with

Congress to minimize the exposure of children and all Americans

to potentially toxic chemicals in these and other settings.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify and I will be pleased to

answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Needle follows:]

114

115

116

117

118

119

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Needle.

Ms. DeVany, we are pleased to have you.

STATEMENT OF MARY DEVANY

Ms. DEVANY. Good morning. My name is Mary DeVany, and I

am a scientist specializing in industrial hygiene, the recognition

and control of occupational and environmental health, and safety

concerns.

I would like to thank Congressman Waxman, Congressman

Davis, and the other congressional representatives that decided to

hold this hearing and attend today.

I also wish to thank my husband, who is a Wesley Lifebrook, a

certified industrial hygienist who returned just 5 months ago from

active duty in Iraq. If it were not for his research, knowledge, and

support, I could not have been here today.

I want to share some information to help you take action, because we Americans have the ability to give our disaster victims

safe and secure housing, free from known hazards that every

American wants and deserves.

As you know, formaldehyde is a component in manufacturing of

particle board, press board, fiber board, paneling grooves, counter

tops, and other materials, including some adhesives used to lay

carpeting. Since these materials are so common, everyone is exposed, to some degree. However, when the exposure gets elevated,

we experience symptoms including headache, dizziness, nausea,

loss of sense of smell, and fatigue. Respiratory system irritation,

nose bleeds, sinus infection, throat irritation, coughing, and chest

congestion occur, as well. Eye and skin itching, burning, and skin

eruptions occur.

Formaldehyde also makes many pre-existing medical conditions

worse, including asthma, allergies that affect the sinuses, chronic

bronchitis, emphysema, skin diseases such as eczema, and migraine headaches.

Over the long term, we know that formaldehyde can cause

changes to certain cells in the immune system. Skin and respiratory sensitization can also occur in some people, making them

have serious health effects with even very low exposures. And

changes in nasal and nasal pharyngeal cells occur that can develop

into cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, it may also cause

brain cancer and possibly leukemia.

Regarding exposure limits, the scientific community recommends

limits based on two main groups: adults in the workplace and the

population at large. Agencies such as OSHA, NIOSH, and the military base their limits on the average adult worker not sensitized

to formaldehyde and—and this is critical—people who are exposed

for an average of only 8 to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week,

with the rest of the hours each day and week away from the exposure source, so these levels can be set much higher because the

away-from-the-exposure-source recovery time assists those people

and their bodies in recovering from their exposures.

Levels set by agencies such as the EPA, the ATSDR—Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry—and many State agencies,

as well as the World Health Organization, set exposure standards

120

aimed to protect nearly all of our most vulnerable citizens, including the elderly, infants, and people that are medically compromised. Workplace and military standards do not protect this atrisk segment of our population.

Because of concern for the health of individuals living in these

trailers, over a year ago the Sierra Club began sampling trailers

in Mississippi. Within a couple of months after being informed of

the high levels, FEMA had sampling conducted by the EPA. The

Sierra Club sampled 69 trailers, the EPA tested 96. The results

were similar: nearly all of the trailers sampled had formaldehyde

levels at least three times the proposed level for healthy, physically

fit sailors exposed to formaldehyde on a submarine for only 90

days. That population group even excludes medically unfit soldiers.

One of the responses FEMA just implemented was to adopt, for

new travel trailers, below-hub particle board and powdered emissions regulations that only apply to mobile homes. By closing this

loophole, FEMA is showing commitment to the health of the inhabitants of these brand new trailers. However, approximately 86,000

people are still living in the old travel trailers, and, according to

the sample results, most of these trailers have unacceptably high

levels of formaldehyde.

So what can you do? Manufacturers can substitute soy-based adhesives for formaldehyde-based ones. We can give people who are

sick different trailers or other temporary housing. We can educate

trailer occupants on formaldehyde health effects and give them options for relocating. We can ensure that people without symptoms

are removed from hazardous exposures by testing all existing trailers before they develop the symptoms. And we must require manufacturers to cure an off-gas formaldehyde at the manufacturing

level.

In addition, we should test the formaldehyde level in each trailer

prior to acceptance and delivery of new trailers. We should not sell

or donate empty, vacated trailers that have elevated formaldehyde

levels to Native Americans or others before ensuring that the levels

are safe. There are routine procedures to cure formaldehyde in

empty trailers that should be implemented.

In conclusion, the elevated exposures to this toxic, irritating, and

cancer-causing gas in FEMA-issued travel trailers has developed

into a major public health concern. Now that we have recognized

the problem, Americans need to take prompt, effective action to

help these disaster victims and safeguard their health. We have

the tools. We now need Congress to take decisive action. We owe

this to our fellow Americans who have been victimized again

through no fault of their own.

I am ready for questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeVany follows:]

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. DeVany.

Mr. Stewart, please go ahead.

STATEMENT OF PAUL STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman and members of the committee, it is a great honor

to be here today and discuss the experiences my wife and I endured

with FEMA and the temporary trailer they provided us, while at

the same time it is sad that this hearing has to take place at all.

On December 2, 2005, FEMA delivered our camper. When we

first took possession of the camper we noticed a strong new smell

inside the camper. We aired out the camper as FEMA instructed,

turning on the heat, opening the windows, turning on the exhaust

vent. The camper stayed that way for the next 4 months.

The first night we stayed in the camper, my wife woke up several

times with a runny nose. At one point she turned the light on and

realized that her runny nose was actually a bloody nose. I was also

beginning to show symptoms of my own, which included scratchy

eyes, scratchy throat, coughing, and runny nose.

The symptoms we had continued for weeks, then months, and we

finally thought about just leaving, but at the time we couldn’t

leave. We were still fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers,

with FEMA. We had debris all over our yard. Money was short,

and we were stuck.

Then one morning when I woke up I found our pet cockatiel was

very lethargic, unable to move. He was regurgitating, unable to

keep his balance. I immediately called the veterinarian, who told

us to get him out of the camper immediately, so we did. We took

him outside. We got ready to leave, and within an hour the bird

was beginning to get better. He wasn’t better, but he was getting

better.

We took him to the veterinarian, who told us that the camper

was probably making him sick. We asked him how that was possible, and he said, well, there are many chemicals inside the camper, especially a new one. He said that formaldehyde was the most

likely cause. He said if we don’t get the bird out of there, the bird

will probably die. He explained to us that birds, much like children,

breathe much more rapidly than adults and they take in much

more of the toxins that are inside the camper, and that he is going

to show symptoms before we do, but that we should also get out.

From that point on we kept the bird outside as often as we could,

and we really do believe that bird saved our lives.

At that point I started to research formaldehyde and started to

find out what formaldehyde could do to us and others like us who

were living in these campers. What I found out almost immediately

is that the EPA lists formaldehyde as a carcinogen.

There was also a common problem inside the campers, in that all

the smoke detectors inside the FEMA campers would go off for no

reason at all. You would go into FEMA campers and find the batteries ripped out, smoke detectors torn off the wall, and so forth.

What I found out was that formaldehyde can set off smoke detectors. I checked with a firefighter friend of mine who knew someone

in the industry, and they did confirm that formaldehyde at high

levels will set off smoke detectors.

131

I then called FEMA and talked to them about the problems, and

they told me to ‘‘air out the camper.’’ I explained to them that I

had been airing out the camper for 4 months, and they said, well,

continue to air out the camper. They also told me that some people

are just ‘‘more chemically sensitive than others.’’

That statement kind of made me angry. As a former U.S. Army

infantry officer and as a former police officer I have been tazed,

pepper sprayed, I have been through CS gas chambers, and I do

not consider myself to be a chemically sensitive person.

Anyway, I started to look for ways to mitigate the problem. What

I did first was I tore out all of the exposed particle board I could

find. I replaced it with pine plank. That did nothing. I then went

ahead and bought some ferns that the Space Center said to use to

try to reduce formaldehyde. That didn’t work, either. I then got a

substance used by the mortuary business to try and absorb formaldehyde. That didn’t work. Then I purchased an air purifier, a

professional one, 15 pound charcoal filter. It moves 400 cubic feet

of air per minute, and it is designed to cover 1,500 square feet.

That also had no effect.

Eventually I ended up testing my own camper, after I called

FEMA numerous times and asked them to help and they refused.

When I tested my camper, I found a company called American

Chemical Sensors out of Boca Raton, FL. They mailed me a test kit

and actually told me that I should get out of the camper when they

heard of our symptoms. They said our symptoms made it look as

though we were having formaldehyde poisoning.

I got the sensor, hung it inside the camper, and took it down and

mailed it back to the company. When they got the results, the results were 0.22 parts per million, or twice what the EPA considers

safe.

I called FEMA and told them what was going on, and they told

me that, ‘‘I should be happy with the camper that I have, and that

we do not have any other campers to supply you.’’

I couldn’t believe what FEMA was telling me. Essentially they

were telling me that they were going to do nothing about the problem, even though I had already alerted them that what we were

living in was cancer causing.

During this time I also started to dig around, and what I did find

was an OSHA study dated October 11, 2005, 43 days after Hurricane Katrina. The OSHA study tested outside ambient air at a

Pass Christian trailer holding facility. That outside ambient air

tested as high as five parts per million—not 0.5 parts per million,

but five parts per million outdoor ambient air.

I called FEMA, told them what I had found, and again they told

me, sorry, there is nothing we can do for you.

At that point I called the local television station, and they decided to run the story. The next morning at 8 I got a call from

FEMA, who told me that they were on their way with a new camper.

The new camper arrived, and when it did the FEMA representatives arrived shortly before the camper did and wanted to cut my

sewer lines, my water lines, and pull my camper out. I refused. I

wouldn’t let them.

132

When the camper showed up, it showed up in front of the driveway. I walked outside. I didn’t even walk up to the camper and I

could smell the formaldehyde from my driveway. The workers who

delivered the camper also said they could not go inside, the formaldehyde was so bad.

I told them to take the camper and go home. I didn’t want it.

At that point FEMA called me at one point and said, ‘‘What are

we going to have to do to make you happy?’’ And they said also,

‘‘So you didn’t refuse it because of the type of camper it was?’’ During that conversation they also wanted to record my conversation

with them, which I thought was kind of strange. I worked in police

work a number of years, and I can tell you that what it sounded

to me like was that they were trying to get together a chain of custody. They were trying to put together evidence. I felt like a criminal.

Anyway, I refused that camper, and at that point FEMA brought

me another new camper. I know I am running out of time, sir. I

apologize. When they brought me the third camper I got a call, and

they said, we are going to bring you a camper. We have inspected

this camper. There is no formaldehyde inside this camper.

My wife and I were pretty excited. They said, we have had people

go through this camper, and we can assure you this camper is

brand new. They talked about the options that were in the camper

and so forth. My wife and I said, we are not really concerned about

the options; we just want a safe place to live.

They brought out the camper to us, and when the camper

showed up they had approximately 15 FEMA people on my property. There was a public relations person there. There were officials

there. Anyway, they brought the camper in, they convinced us. The

public relations woman convinced us that the camper was fine,

there was nothing wrong with it, there was no formaldehyde in it,

so we let her take our old camper.

They delivered the camper, and the people went about setting it

up. It took them most of the day, and by the time my wife and I

got in there it was dark. When we went to go inside the camper,

the public relations woman said, ‘‘OK, I can’t stay around any

longer, I have to leave,’’ so she left.

When she left, my wife and I realized immediately upon entering

the camper that it was not new; in fact, it was used. The stove was

dirty, the floors were dirty. It was filthy inside.

I said to my wife, we can clean this. Let’s just get to work now,

we can get it done before bed.

The first thing I did was take back the bed sheet, and when I

did I noticed there were bugs inside the bed, literally bugs in the

bed. I called the public relations woman back and said I can’t sleep

in this bed, and she said, well, there is nothing I can do for you,

it is a Friday. I won’t be able to help you until Monday morning.

I explained to her that if I can’t have a place to sleep, I am going

to have to go back living in my truck again. She said, I’m sorry,

there is nothing we can do for you. You are going to have to do

what you have to do.

I said, there is absolutely nothing you can do for me? She said,

well, I can get you a hotel room in Pensacola, FL, but I can only

put you in there for one night.

133

I said, ma’am, I am in Bay St. Louis, MS. To get to Pensacola,

FL, right now, it would be 2 until I get there, and for one night

it is just not worth my time. She said, well, then, you are going

to have to wait until Monday. We will take care of you on Monday.

Anyway, this went back and forth and back and forth for a long

amount of time with FEMA. It wasn’t long after that I was visited

by two members of FEMA. They showed up at the house on Sunday night and said they wanted to see the camper. The one person

who showed up identified himself as the head of the Mississippi

camper program. He said to me that FEMA will do whatever it

takes to fix the problem. He said if he had to have 10 workers work

2 days straight, he would take care of everything.

The interesting thing with this conversation is that I asked him

at one point where he was staying. He was from out of State. He

said, I am renting a gutted apartment in Gulfport. He wasn’t staying in a FEMA camper, he was staying in an apartment in Gulfport, taking up rental housing that really should have gone to the

residents of the Gulf Coast.

After going through this for a number of days and spending 5

more days in my truck in my driveway, I finally had enough with

FEMA and I told them to take their property and get off my land.

At that point they came back and took their camper, and I went

out and purchased my own camper, which I will tell you is formaldehyde free.

The interesting thing about that camper is my wife and I paid $50,000 for that camper. It has a king-sized bed, a fireplace. It has

a washer and dryer. It has computer work stations. It is a very

large camper with three slide-outs, very comfortable. From everything I have read up to this point, FEMA has paid approximately

$65,000 for each one of the campers that they supplied to Gulf

Coast residents after the storm.

As I sit in front of you today I just want to say that I am one

of the lucky ones. My wife and I are safe now, we are out of our

camper. We are no longer exposed to that level of formaldehyde,

but there are tens of thousands of people who are still there living

in those campers every day.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we lost a great deal

through our dealings with FEMA, not the least of which is our

faith in Government. I can truly say that a buzz term that has

been used around Washington for a long time is a culture of life,

and I just think that a culture of life really just ends up being rhetoric when you see things like this. It is not the real world, and in

the real world you are on your own.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart.

Mrs. Huckabee.

STATEMENT OF LINDSAY HUCKABEE

Mrs. HUCKABEE. I would like to start by thanking Chairman

Waxman and members of the committee for taking the time to address this important issue.

My name is Lindsay Huckabee. I live in Kiln, MS in a FEMAprovided mobile home with my five children and my husband. On

August 29, 2005 we lived in an apartment in Pass Christian. We

learned days later that our apartment and all of its contents had

been destroyed. We contacted FEMA, and they told us that, because of our family size, we did qualify for a single-wide mobile

home. We were very excited and felt very blessed.

We were told that if we cleared the site, provided our own septic,

our own water, and our own electricity, that they would deliver the

camper. We had everything ready by mid-November.

On December 14th our new home was delivered and set up. We

realized upon moving in that there was a strange smell to it. It

made our eyes water, our throats itch. We had numerous respiratory problems, but we had never had a new trailer before, we

just assumed that it was the plastics and all that kind of stuff.

I began having migraine headaches and pre-term labor. My

daughter, who had been asthma free for about a year—we had just

discussed on August 3rd, her 4 year checkup, that she had probably outgrown it—began having asthma attacks. Three of my children began having severe nosebleeds several times a week. My

husband began having problems with his sinuses, as well.

After 3 weeks of pre-term labor, stopped by medication, our

youngest son, Michael, was delivered 4 weeks early. All of my other

children were born on time.

We brought him home from the hospital. He was healthy. About

3 days after being home, his sinuses became congested. Today he

is 18 months old and his sinuses have not cleared up for more than

a week or two at a time.

My daughter, Lelah, who was 4 when we received the trailer,

had most of the problems. She has had pneumonia several times.

She has had more ear infections than I can count. She has been

put on steroids, breathing treatments. She has been sent to the

hospital with pneumonia and been hospitalized three times to date.

She was sent to an ENT, where she underwent allergy testing, and

MRI of her sinuses, and they put tubes in her ears so that the excess fluid her sinuses were producing could escape.

The only thing that he had to say whenever I asked about the

allergy test was that she was allergy free and there seemed to be

some kind of irritant that she was being exposed to. He then asked

me if we were living in a FEMA trailer. I told him we were. He

said that there were chemicals in those trailers that could be making children sick. He said it was too early to tell, but he had seen

an increase in patients repeatedly with the same problems.

We took Lelah to an allergy and asthma specialist. They did another allergy test and found nothing. I never thought that I would

be upset to hear there was nothing wrong with my child, but if it

was an allergy, at least we had something we could fight. The idea

142

of our home making us sick was not really something that we were

ready to grasp, since we had no other place to go.

The allergy/asthma specialist had also seen an increase in patients with mild to moderate asthma becoming very severe.

After an inhaled steroid twice a day, an oral steroid, and allergy

medication once a day, Lelah’s asthma is now under control. Lelah

missed 42 days of kindergarten this year. I had to deal with the

truancy officers at school, even though all but three of these days

were excused by doctor’s visits, hospitalizations, and surgeries.

The school nurse has called me more times than I can count to

go pick her up because of a nosebleed that wouldn’t stop and fevers

that were caused by ear infections that wouldn’t go away. Looking

back, she would have been better off staying at school than coming

home to the environment that was making her sick.

After months and months of office visits and phone calls, I was

frustrated. I came home one afternoon and found my daughter. Her

hand was over her nose. She was covered in blood—her hand, her

arms, her shirt. The most frightening thing later, when I thought

about it, was I didn’t rush to her. Not for a second did I think there

was anything wrong with my kid other than a nosebleed. It was

very sad to me, but I have gotten to the point where it is a common

practice to see my child covered in blood and it not scare me.

Our pediatrician had made a link also with the FEMA occupants

and the patients having increased problems. It was through him

that I was contacted by the Sierra Club to do a formaldehyde test

on our trailer. We did the test. It came back at 0.18 parts per million, almost two times the recommended limit. This was after 16

months of living there, after airing out our trailer, after running

the A/C nonstop, opening windows and doors whenever we weren’t

home, so I can only imagine what it was for the 16 months that

we were there beforehand.

Three weeks ago my husband was having his teeth cleaned and

they found a mass in his soft palette. They referred him to an ENT.

He had a CAT scan. The ENT said that he needed to go in and

have it removed immediately. The mass ended up being a polymorphic adenoma tumor. While no one can say for sure if it was

caused by formaldehyde or not, my husband is an otherwise

healthy, 30 year old, non-smoking man.

This is something that the ENT said that could be the beginning

of what we will see on a long-term basis for the formaldehyde exposure.

What makes me so angry is that FEMA is providing these trailers to disaster victims. They said that they have inspected these

trailers and deem them safe. I do not believe that FEMA set out

to harm people of the Gulf Coast. I have to have more faith in our

Government than that. But I do think it was handled very poorly

whenever they were notified.

We had contacted FEMA over and over again about something

making our family sick and several problems, and we were met

with much resistance. Whenever we told them about our levels of

formaldehyde, they replaced our trailer in June of this year. We

had that formaldehyde tested, as well, and it is still over the limit.

Whenever we called FEMA, the level is lower than the other one

was, and she said, So we are good, right? We are not finished movVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
143

ing into this trailer, and I don’t believe we will. I think that it is

very silly to expose my children to this unnecessary risk. And we

were told ahead of time that this trailer was completely formaldehyde free, it was used, it was built in 2005 by a different manufacturer.

In closing, I would like to say that I represent probably the median of the problem. There are people who are in severe cases and

far worse than mine. It is scary to me that people who don’t know

about formaldehyde don’t know what to look out for, because if you

look at the nosebleeds, the colds, the sinus infections separately,

you just think that your kids are staying sick.

I asked my pediatrician more times than I can count—my house

is clean, I am keeping away from people who are sick. What can

I do to keep these kids healthy? It is so frustrating, as a mother,

to go back and forth, and it feels like you are failing whenever you

can’t keep your kids out of the hospital and you can’t keep them

from getting sick. I think that the other people of the Gulf Coast

need to be publicly notified of what symptoms to watch for, because

they could be silently suffering and not realize what is making

them sick.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Huckabee follows:]

144

145

146

147

148

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Huckabee.

Mr. Harris.

STATEMENT OF JAMES HARRIS, JR.

Mr. HARRIS. I would first like to thank God for truly blessing me

to be here today before you at this time in our history. I would like

to thank the chairman and members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for the opportunity to share my experiences with you at this time.

My name is James D. Harris, Jr. I am 46 years old and I have

been blessed with a wonderful wife of 17 years named Aretha. God

saw fit to bless us with a son who is 6 years old, and his name is

James D. Harris III. Of course, we call him Tre’.

I am self-employed with Agape Trade Graphics in Marketing

Group, and I am also a minister of the Gospel. I have been blessed

to have been in the ministry for over 20 years, focusing those efforts mainly in the southern region of the United States. My small

business was established in 1999 and continued to grow until the

disaster known as Hurricane Katrina came on the Gulf Coast.

Since the hurricane, my business has diminished and my ability

to prosper from that endeavor has been hampered by overall economic recovery here on the Gulf Coast. I was blessed to start a

nonprofit organization named the Guardian Angel Adoption Program, with the Web site address of

www.guardianangelprogram.org. It has been a blessing to many

families here on the Gulf Coast. The nonprofit endeavor was

formed after witnessing the unfortunate oversight of many families

and seniors who were tragically left behind or out of the recovery

and rejuvenation efforts of some of the other agencies here on the

Gulf Coast. I must state for the record there is still a great need

of services for people like these in the public at large, especially

here on the Gulf Coast.

If someone would have told me 3 years ago that I would be living

in a FEMA trailer with my wife and son, I just wouldn’t have believed that. But the reality is that I am in a FEMA trailer and

have been living here since April 2006 until now. Many people that

I come in contact with are in the same position that my family and

I are in now.

I must state for the record that I am thankful to have a roof over

my head and shelter from the elements. I just want to say that it

is a blessing to have somewhere to stay. By nature, I am not one

to complain about my circumstances or situations that I find myself

in from time to time, when God has allowed me the strength to endure and to maintain as much as possible, especially during the

trying times after Hurricane Katrina.

I must say I have never witnessed first-hand in my life the overpowering devastation that one event could have on so many people.

With all that being said, my life has been changed, as so many

others have during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and I must

say I will never be the same again.

My family and I have experienced many challenges in pursuit of

getting the FEMA trailer we now have. Time will not permit me

to address some of those challenges, but I will say that I have exerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
149

cised every bit of knowledge that I have experienced and plain old

luck to get in position to be in the facility at this time.

When my family and I entered into the trailer in April 2006, we

noticed a pungent and overpowering odor that permeated through

the whole FEMA travel trailer. You must understand that the

three of us are living in a space less than 50 square feet. There is

one bathroom, and only one door for access in or out. We also noticed that our eyes burned and watered as we tried to inhabit the

trailer facility.

We were told by the persons who gave us the keys to the trailer

initially that if we opened the doors and windows of the trailer and

allowed the trailer to air out for a period of a couple hours, that

all the odors and the burning sensations of our eyes would pass

and would not come back.

Over a period of time and to this day we have found that this

remedy did not remove the strong odors that we now know to be

formaldehyde. On many occasions my wife and I contacted the

FEMA maintenance number to register our concerns and express

our displeasure in the frequency and the magnitude of the odors

and the visual challenges that being in the trailer presented when

these conditions existed. The reply we received from the FEMA

maintenance call center was the same, stating, You need to allow

the trailer to air out when you smell these odors. There was never

any attempt that I know of to physically try to address this concern.

There were other physical conditions that have arisen inside the

trailer and outside the trailer, and they have for the most part

been addressed, but this particular issue seems to have continued

to be addressed to us in the same fashion.

Now, you must also understand that my family and I stayed in

one room on the north side of my parents’ home after Hurricane

Katrina. The southern exposure of my parents’ home was compromised and destroyed by the hurricane’s fury. My parents, my

brother and his wife and two sons, and my family and I existed in

the room of my parents’ home for 8 months. So when we were finally able to get in a FEMA trailer, we were so thankful and continued to try to make things work.

I never realized until late that we might even have the possibility of being moved into another more adequate and more environmentally safe trailer. Not being aware of that fact, I know that this

is one of the main reasons why, after notifying FEMA maintenance

in about the formaldehyde and how it was affecting us on numerous occasions, we just decided to make the best of the situation.

I must note at this point that we noticed often that the company

that FEMA was contracting the maintenance trailers were in

charge of that particular process were changing almost every 2

weeks. This frequent changing of the guards I believe affected the

way in which the situation was handled, and eventually never

truly was addressed.

I would notice, along with my wife, that if we ever left the home

for more than 5 to 6 hours, when we returned the smells and odors

would sometimes be overpowering. This means we had to air out

our trailer on several occasions, losing time while we were waiting

for the air quality to resume to some level of acceptability, and we

150

figured this was to be our accepted existence in this FEMA trailer.

This happened many times during our occupancy of the trailer.

While I felt there was no other avenue available to me, I had to

find a way, with God’s help, to make the air quality in the trailer

the best that I could. I purchased an Oreck XL tabletop professional air purifier in July 2006, for $469.95. I had to borrow the

money to purchase this air filter, but I did what I felt I had to do

to protect my family to exist day to day. Without this filter, I don’t

even know if we could have been in the trailer at all.

Let me close in saying this: since we have been in the trailer, we

have had to nebulize our son several times, and my wife and I believe this goes directly to the lack of air quality at times in the

trailer. My wife has also had bouts with breathing, and I have had

several respiratory incidents, the latest of which occurred on

Thursday, July 12, 2007. The smell of the formaldehyde was so

strong and so overwhelming that my eyes and my family’s eyes

were discomforted and we just opened up the windows and everything, and it got so bad that this past Tuesday I actually had to

go to the emergency room.

I am not going to read the rest of the statement. You have it for

the record. But in closing I would like to say to you all I didn’t even

know the Government was concerned. When I found out about this,

I just want to let you know I am thankful to know that somebody

is concerned. When you are helpless, it is one thing; but when you

are hopeless, it is something else. So I hope that something is done

about this problem.

I am free to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]

151

152

153

154

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

I want to thank all of you. It is not easy to come and testify before Congress, sharing your experiences which were not happy

ones, but it is important that you are here, and this is a very helpful presentation.

I am now going to recognize Members to ask questions, and I am

going to start with myself.

You told us just compelling stories of what happened to your

families. I guess the question we want to know is, are these isolated incidents, or are they widespread? Dr. Needle, do you have

any information about that?

Dr. NEEDLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It has been very difficult to get

a handle on the numbers, and part of this is because, as the other

presenters have testified, the symptoms are not anything, in and

of themselves, unusual. They are very common things. Myself, as

a pediatrician, this was part of the problem that I ran into is I

would try and go back to my medical records or try and pinpoint

who might be suffering. They were having colds and sinus

infections——

Chairman WAXMAN. So a lot of people would suffer. Kids would

come in to see you and they wouldn’t associate it with the formaldehyde.

Dr. NEEDLE. Exactly.

Chairman WAXMAN. Is that right, Ms. DeVany?

Ms. DEVANY. Yes, sir. Exactly.

Chairman WAXMAN. And some of you said thousands of people

are living in trailers. Is that an accurate statement, Ms. DeVany?

Ms. DEVANY. I would say it is certainly accurate or even more

than accurate. It may be more like tens of thousands. The trouble

is almost every trailer that FEMA sampled unoccupied, continuously ventilated for 3 weeks, almost all of them had elevation levels

100 times the recommended exposure limits.

Chairman WAXMAN. Those were trailers that were not occupied,

with the windows open, the air conditioning going, and then at still

very high levels?

Ms. DEVANY. Extremely high levels. And, like I said in my testimony, the Sierra Club’s efforts were similar. Almost all of the trailers had elevated levels that not only would not be allowed in the

workplace for normal, healthy adults who were able to leave work

and not be exposed, but certainly dangerous levels for our more

fragile and sensitive segments of the population—children, adults

with compromised immune systems, other preexisting skin conditions, respiratory conditions.

And in that same vein, I am very, very concerned, as an industrial hygienist, about the people who have never complained about

problems, who are afraid to complain about the problems for fear

their trailer will be taken away from them, or don’t have the

money or speak the language well enough or have any idea who to

turn to or where to go for help.

Chairman WAXMAN. That is very much of a problem.

Ms. DEVANY. From these samples, we know a vast majority of

these trailers have levels way too high for anyone to live in.

Chairman WAXMAN. That is the story of the vast majority. You

know because you have done vast sampling of it, but we know only

155

of one instance where FEMA sampled a trailer, and that was a

case where, according to their documents that were submitted to

us—maybe they sampled others—that was a trailer that was occupied by Carlton and Dawn Sistrunk, a husband and wife with a 4-

month old daughter. Sistrunk was also 2 months pregnant. We got

a signed statement from her that she complained and complained

and complained, and in February 2006 they sent somebody out to

test it. After they went out there and tested that trailer, they found

formaldehyde levels of 1.2 parts per million, and she was told not

to re-enter her trailer. It was 75 times higher than the guidelines

for formaldehyde exposure set by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

In that case, after that case the FEMA people out on the field

were saying this is a real problem, we have to do something about

it. But after it got to the Washington people, the thing that we see

consistently is that they wanted to ignore the problem. They just

wanted to act as if it didn’t exist. So what we had is indifference

to the suffering of people who are already suffering because of Hurricane Katrina, and this is from an agency that is supposed to

serve the public.

We found in the documents that the Washington 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.

It looks like they thought their duty was not to respond, not to

know, to just be ignorant, to let people suffer. In fact—I thought

this was remarkable—according to one internal FEMA e-mail that

read, ‘‘According to HQ, there are no health concerns associated

with the formaldehyde inside our FEMA mobile homes, travel trailers.’’ That is what they were saying, that there were no health concerns.

Well, that just belies what the medical political and the others

who suffered directly from the formaldehyde let us know from their

own experience.

Dr. NEEDLE. Mr. Chairman, if I may?

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes.

Dr. NEEDLE. I think we have been calling on the Gulf Coast for

some time that the reason, for instance, I cannot give you a

straight answer as to how many people are affected by this problem is the short answer is we don’t know. I think it warrants a

study to find out exactly how many people are suffering, how many

have come forward to FEMA or to the media or other agencies, and

how many are, as Ms. DeVany said, basically suffering in silence.

We don’t have the answers to that.

Mr. HARRIS. And may I say to that——

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman and other Members, when you don’t

know what to do, you tend to try to make the best of the situation.

When they talk about people suffering in silence, I think that people don’t know what to do so they make the best of the situation

because, even when they come to do the inspections—and they did

an inspection with us about a week ago—we complained again.

They said, well, we are not the ones that handle that. You need to

call the FEMA call center and let them handle it. But when you

156

call them, they tell you that you need to get with the inspectors.

So we don’t even have a direct line of who to actually call to find

out how to handle the situation.

I would say to you we need to know what to do and who to call

so that we can try to make a change.

Chairman WAXMAN. Absolutely. This is Government bureaucracy

at its worst. It is the Government failing the people who have already suffered from the hurricane and are now suffering from the

health danger.

I want to move on to the other Members, but I am sure you will

get a chance to answer some of these points or make some more

if you want.

I would like to recognize Mr. Issa first, but can I ask unanimous

consent to put a statement in the record by the Manufactured

Housing Institute, which talks about their standards for building,

and a statement by Lee Shull, who is a principal toxicologist and

risk assessor. Without objection, that will be put in the record.

[The prepared statements of the Manufactured Housing Institute

and Lee Shull follow:]

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the affidavit that we have from Carlton and

Dawn Sistrunk be made part of the record, as well. Without objection, that will be the order.

[The prepared statement of Carlton and Dawn Sistrunk follows:]

164

165

Chairman WAXMAN. Five minutes of your time you are yielding

to Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding

this hearing today. I don’t often get an opportunity to say not only

is this a bipartisan or even a nonpartisan issue, but it is one that

we are only just beginning to touch.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to beg your indulgence and say that

at this point I have no doubt that, either through public hearings

or through staff research, we are clearly going to have to do a followup on the effects of formaldehyde, since there seems to be a dichotomy between what our own Government says the effects are

and what we are hearing here today.

I would also ask that at least on the merits on paper that we do

a followup on the industry that produces these products. I think

they are not being heard from here today, and they may very well

be unfairly tarnished for what happened in this case.

Having said that, it is very clear that we need to direct FEMA

to find out why these trailers, in an industry in which people routinely purchase both travel trailers and single-and double-wide

relocatable homes and have no such problems that I am aware of—

and it is millions of homes in America—why these particular trailers or a large sub-section of these trailers enjoyed this elevated

level. I think that we have to direct FEMA to hold some accountability as to the specific manufacturers who delivered these products, which again goes to the question of virtually universal testing

to find out where the shortcuts may have been taken.

Last, but not least, I have taken the liberty—and my questions

will be directed in this way—of reading ahead the FEMA Administrator’s opening statement. It may surprise all of you, if you

haven’t had a chance to read it. I will give you something that may

surprise you, and I am hoping that the Administrator will rethink

his opening statement. It includes such things as, ‘‘Only 58 trailer

units have been replaced because of formaldehyde concerns, 18 in

Louisiana, 30 in Mississippi, 8 in Texas, 2 in Alabama. Five additional formaldehyde complaints in Mississippi and Texas have resulted in occupants being moved to rental housing resources.’’ I

guess the number goes up ever so slightly.

This relatively cavalier statement about the problem being that

small because of the only people who have been resolved might, in

fact, show us that FEMA has a large problem, is reducing it, and

their opening statement talks in terms of cosmetics, show polishes,

and other things which use formaldehyde as though these are selfinduced elevated levels.

Without going into the entire statement, and with that warning

to the next panel, are any of you surprised that only 58 plus 5 are,

in fact, of concern today to FEMA? Mrs. Huckabee. Anyone.

Mrs. HUCKABEE. I would like to say that I am not overly surprised that many have been replaced, considering the fact that it

took about 14 months of constant complaining saying something is

making us sick for them to get around to it. I am kind of disappointed. And pardon me if it was not intended that way, but it

sounds like they are using that number to minimize the problem,

rather than say this is what has been solved. That I find highly

disappointing.

166

Mr. ISSA. When you are looking at the people, the three of you

that dealt directly with FEMA representatives, they offered you alternate trailers. They eventually did give you an alternate trailer.

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. But apparently they were willing to expend a considerable amount of money. Are you of the belief that this was a resource limitation, because we on this side allocated a considerable

amount of money. Do you believe that it was resource or authority

limited, if you can use those two, for those who were directly affected.

Mr. STEWART. It was authoritative. In fact, it is very difficult to

go through a statement like this with the time limitations, because

you don’t get across what really happened to you. What happened

to us was a very long process, and it would take us most of the day

to discuss it. But, from the statements they made to me, they were

degrading. It was like we were asking for something else, like they

were giving us something.

I told people over and over again, we are just like every other

taxpaying citizen in the United States that just happened to lose

everything we own in the span of a couple of hours.

You know, we are not just alone. At the beginning of the statement I was actually going to read it, and I didn’t for time’s sake,

but one of the things I was going to ask everybody up here to understand, and even the people who are behind us who are going to

testify next, imagine when you left your house this morning, you

made sure the stove was off, you locked up your house and made

sure everything was in its place, and when you go home tonight

your house is gone and everything that is in it is gone, and your

neighbor’s house is gone, and your neighborhood is gone, and your

town hall is gone, stores, everything.

We didn’t ask for this, but the way FEMA treated us was as if

we were charity cases; that when you called them with a problem,

it wasn’t a problem to them. To them you were asking for something better. That is the context they took when you asked for help.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Stewart, even though you were an infantry officer

and I was an armor officer, I just want to quickly ask you, You

know how the culture of a chain of command works.

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. Can you give us a strong assurance, based on the numerous people you worked through, that, in fact, we are dealing in,

in fact, a culture of the chain of command, or did other factors play

a part?

Mr. STEWART. It was definitely a culture of chain of command.

They would do things like, ‘‘I have to call someone. I will call you

back.’’ It was definitely they were working their way up the chain

of command to find out what the answer was they were supposed

to give.

You know, at some point in time—and it is the one thing they

taught all of us in officer training—when in doubt, make a decision. You have to allow first-level managers to make decisions

about problems that are happening right now on the ground that

could affect the health and welfare of people, and they didn’t give

those people that authority. It would take days sometimes to get

an answer from somebody because they were calling probably all

167

the way back to Washington to get an answer before they could tell

us what they were going to do. That is not the way to treat people

who are having life-threatening problems.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Cummings.

Before you begin, Mr. Cummings, let me point out, because the

question was what the industry had to say, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association submitted for the record a statement, a

toxicology report, and in that report the industry said that the very

high levels of formaldehyde were not harmful. I just wanted to note

that. Their toxicology report is part of the record.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Stewart, Mrs. Huckabee, and Mr. Harris, let me say that I

think it was you, Mr. Stewart, that said ‘‘I have lost my faith in

Government.’’ Then you said something that really kind of struck

me. You said in the real world you are on your own. But that is

not the way the United States is supposed to be. When our people

get in trouble, just like you just said, the Nation is supposed to

come to their rescue, and you should not be treated like you are

not a citizen of this country, and for that I think we all have to

straighten that out.

To Mrs. Huckabee, you said, ‘‘I do not believe that FEMA set out

to do harm.’’ And one of the other things that you said was, ‘‘What

can I do to stop my children from being sick?’’ Well, the fact is that

FEMA should have asked the same question: how can they make

sure that you and your family are safe?

And then to you, Reverend Harris, you talked about helplessness

and hopelessness. That goes back to the line of questioning that

just took place, Mr. Issa’s questions.

I think part of the problem here—and we have to keep this in

mind—there are a lot of people who are helpless. They feel helpless

and they feel hopeless, and they have already come through one

storm, and they are just trying to figure out how do they survive

from day to day, so rather than complain they go through the process.

Then, going back to something you said, Ms. DeVany, we have

a situation where they have children. I am telling you I was here

shaking my head, the thought that someone would put children in

that situation. I don’t care who you want to blame for it, whether

you say it is the top, the bottom, the fact is that this should not

happen in the United States of America. It should not. We can

send people to the moon, damn it, we ought to be able to protect

our people and make sure our people are safe.

Now, the committee has been over it. Again, we have been hearing this stuff about ventilation. I just want to ask a few real quick

questions.

After receiving the results of this testing, FEMA has repeatedly

argued that ventilating is a viable option for addressing high formaldehyde levels. For example, in an official statement released to

the public on March 1, 2007, FEMA stated, ‘‘Our investigation of

formaldehyde and travel trailers indicates that ventilating units

can significantly reduce levels of formaldehyde emissions.’’ HowVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
168

ever, FEMA failed to mention how it achieved these results. It tested these trailers with all the windows open, the static vents open,

and the ventilation fan on for 3 straight weeks. The testers never

closed the trailers off in any way.

Mr. Stewart, would it have been reasonable for you to leave your

windows open 24 hours a day?

Mr. STEWART. I did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what happened?

Mr. STEWART. It came back at 0.22 parts per million, over twice

the safe level. And I can add that during that time it was the middle of the winter. We had an air purifier in operation when we did

all our test, all of the windows open, and the exhaust fan on, and

it was almost 4 months after we got our camper, so we had been

airing the camper out for 4 months and left it open while we did

the test and it still came back over twice the safe limit.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mrs. Huckabee, does testing the trailers under

the conditions provide you with any comfort? In other words, the

testing that I just said?

Mrs. HUCKABEE. No.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, Mr. Harris, when you leave your trailer to

go to work, to take your family somewhere, do you have to lock it

up and close the windows?

Mr. HARRIS. You have to lock up your place, because it is where

your valuables are. I might add this to that: when they tell you to

air out the trailer, I don’t really know what air out means now.

What does air out really mean, because when you come back, believe me, it is terrible.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, in other words, if you leave the windows open

and come back, what happens? Do you still have a problem?

Mr. HARRIS. You still have a problem. If you go in there, your

eyes are going to burn, your eyes are going to water, and you are

going to start coughing. You will know. We didn’t know what it was

at first. I know I didn’t. I had no idea it was formaldehyde.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. DeVany, you wanted to say something?

Ms. DEVANY. I do. I would like the members of this committee

to understand that, even though they keep hearing formaldehyde

levels will go away, they will get better and better, in fact, Ball

State University did a study of formaldehyde and formaldehydeemitting particle board and fiber board and plywood, and those

studies showed that after 4 to 5 years the levels were still only

down to half as much; 4 to 5 years. We have to do something before

this.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Davis, I am going to recognize Mr. Souder next, but do you

want——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. The question is, whatever the level is,

FEMA needs to be customer friendly. It seems like they were just

more interested in covering their legal liability, keeping it out of

the newspapers, and that is the wrong direction for Government.

I think all of us on both sides of this, hearing your stories, that is

not the way that we want Government to happen.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Souder.

169

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman. I want to make clear from

the outset that my District makes trailers. Between 58 percent and

67 percent of all RVs and trailers are made in my District. Tens

of thousands of people’s jobs are dependent on facts, not just talking. You all have had a terrible experience. FEMA did not appear

to be responsive. To the degree it was formaldehyde, it should be

addressed and there should have been a response to it. But it is

important not just to have a hanging without even any scientific

facts on the table here. I’m sorry. There were 120,000 trailers that

went to your area. They did not all come and were not all manufactured for this. FEMA went to dealers, FEMA went to all sorts of

different types of things. In my travels down to New Orleans in

that region you can see different types of trailers at different

places, different types of brands at different places. You can’t hang

an industry based on the lack of one case where they checked it.

We have some individuals’ testimony. We have some other individuals. We have 177 formaldehyde complaints out of 120,000, 177.

A sweeping statement saying people are afraid to complain doesn’t

cut it here. There needs to be actual research and checking and

measurement.

Furthermore, all sorts of numbers are being thrown out as far as

what is acceptable. It is 0.4 by HUD, it is 0.1 by EPA. By the way,

we don’t even have an expert on this panel. Dr. Needle is a pediatrician. He hasn’t done research papers on this, he hasn’t studied

this issue. He has the cases that are in front of him. He is doing

the best that he can deal with as a doctor. Another person is a consultant here. They aren’t an expert in the field. We have nobody

here who actually knows anything much about formaldehyde or the

industry. What we have are terrible personal stories that should

have been treated. The Government should have responded.

Now, there are some fundamental questions here. Was there a

difference in the normal process? Are these all made by the same

type of company? Is there some kind of structural thing? How does

it interact in your region? Why haven’t we had these problems in

your region before with these type of things? Clearly, campers are

not intended to be lived in. Why did FEMA let you live in a trailer

that are basically for people to go camping in for short periods of

time and who are outdoors heavily in that period? They are not

meant to be lived-in units, and yet some of them are still down

there being lived in in a way that these things were never built to

do.

Furthermore, we have 10,000 of these things sitting in Arkansas.

In Arkansas, we had better make sure that if any of those are resold that are rebuilt, that they have a great, big made-for-FEMA,

because the standard for the ones who were making it was a different standard even than normal HUD standards were to get

them done, because you were in a panic down there.

We had every trailer that is made in Indiana that is shipped out

basically is pre-sold, so when they went and bought these off dealers’ lots they had to back-fill that. The standards that they would

have there would be different than the standards that would be

sold generally. Generally not formaldehyde. That is a 0.4.

Furthermore, the workers in the plant have a 0.75, and these are

checked and monitored on a regular basis. So one of the other quesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
170

tions is, was there something that happened in the speed of these

that went out, combined with the climate, that somehow changed

even what normally would be in that market? There is no evidence

at all that the individuals who made these things were impacted

any differently. There is no evidence that coming out of the plants

they were any different. To the degree we do find that there are

a number of these at 75 times, if that is the case, other than just

the one example, if that is the case how did that happen? Because

other inspections were occurring as it went on. What is the interaction? What is the time.

But clearly the current FEMA trailers that are in Arkansas

should not go on market until this is further researched.

Second, we need to know whether this is universal. We also need

to know whether people who are getting sick, as Dr. Needle did

say, the symptoms for formaldehyde are similar to many other

symptoms that come through in this particular climate, including

water contamination, including stress, combined with the extra pollution that is in the city. To just uniformly, without research, make

the assertions that I have been hearing today about an industry is

irresponsibility.

We need to respond and help individuals when they are sick. The

insensitivity out of the Government to responding, whatever it was,

you should have been moved out of that housing. That is not the

question. But to slander and make assertions in this committee

without facts is really unfortunate.

I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Did you have any of those questions you

wanted responded to, Mr. Souder?

Mr. STEWART. I could respond to a number of the statements that

he made.

Sir, first let me say for the record that I live in a camper. I

bought my own camper. I am not here today to degrade the camper

industry. I live in one. OK? It is the way the campers were made

and manufactured.

Mr. SOUDER. There is no evidence of that, sir.

Mr. STEWART. OK. The——

Mr. SOUDER. There is no evidence. That is what we need to look

at because what you are saying may, in fact, be true, that, particularly with certain types of reactions in individuals there was not

enough sensitivity or warning said to do that, but you cannot say

on the record, based even on one case, that it is the way they were

made. You say I think it is the way they were made in my case.

Mr. STEWART. OK. Anybody who has been in a FEMA camper,

anybody who has been in numerous FEMA campers—and I have

been in a number of FEMA campers, not just one, but many—the

walls are literally falling down in many of these campers. These

campers were not manufactured like a regular camper. The industry threw these together and delivered them for a reason. So as

they sit today the FEMA campers were put together in a shoddy

fashion. They are not nearly as sturdy as a regular camper, and

whether the materials in them are substandard or not, I know that

the one I took apart, because I took a lot of the material out of

mine, the material was not up to grade. There were a lot of things

with that.

171

And, just to answer your question on the industry workers, if you

watched the report by Dan Rather who interviewed the industry

workers who put those campers together, many of them are, indeed, sick.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

want to thank you for calling this hearing.

You know, every time I am involved in a discussion or a hearing

relative to FEMA, there are new revelations which seem to take

this Agency to a new level of low.

It is hard for me to imagine that any agency, that any business,

any unit of Government could operate with such a high level of incompetence, such a low level of sensitivity, and obviously a level of

not being prepared.

Ms. DeVany, could I ask if you would turn to exhibit Q in your

briefing materials? There is an internal FEMA e-mail from July 26,

2006. It references what FEMA staff apparently call the sniff test.

As you can see, the subject line on this e-mail is ‘‘Formaldehyde

Issues.’’ It is a one-sentence e-mail that reads, ‘‘Can you send someone to check this out, to simply do a sniff test and determine the

needs for a different unit?’’

There are other FEMA documents that refer to the sniff test.

This is apparently the process by which FEMA determines if someone can exchange a trailer based upon high formaldehyde levels. A

FEMA employee or contractor visits the trailer and sees if he can

sniff the smell of formaldehyde. If so, FEMA may swap out the

trailer.

Ms. DeVany, my question is, can you tell us if this approach

makes sense? Can a person, from you experiences, from your training, from your level of expertise, can a person reliably determine

if a trailer is safe by simply sniffing for formaldehyde?

Ms. DEVANY. Yes, I can address that question. First of all, I

would like you to understand that you can’t even smell formaldehyde until the concentration is already, on average, 0.83 percent,

so that means 50 percent of people even at 0.83 percent still can’t

smell it. Only about half the population can, because that is the average. So the formaldehyde level typically is close to one part per

million before we even are aware of definitively, Oh, that is formaldehyde. So we can’t depend on our noses, because once we can

smell formaldehyde we have been way over-exposed. People in the

workplace know this, too.

Second of all, the reference to a sniff test most likely is in reference to a direct driven instrument, a photo-ionization reading instrument that you turn on outside, calibrate it in fresh air, and

then take it inside and it reads almost instantaneously a formaldehyde level. That is one possibility. Those are called sniffers. That

is a possibility of an instrument they might be referring to if, in

good faith, they were using instrumentation.

They also could have used what is called a detector tube, where

they pull a known quantity of air through a chemically treated

tube that changes colors, and they know from the concentration of

change in color on the tube and the volume of air what the concentration of formaldehyde would be in the air. Those are called diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
172

rect reading detector tubes, and they take just 5 minutes to use.

They might have done that, too, if we want to interpret this in good

faith and think they actually used instrumentation and did not depend on their noses. I would not like to think anybody really did

depend on their nose.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, in developing protocols or methods

of operation, would one be accurate to assume that FEMA had access to this type of information, if there were people working for

FEMA and they knew how to get the information that could tell

them how to respond to certain situations?

Ms. DEVANY. This is certainly not common knowledge for a lay

person to know about. FEMA would have to have specialists—industrial hygienists, environmental health engineers like myself—

who understand this kind of instrumentation and how to do proper

sampling for various airborne contaminants. Whether FEMA does

or not, I have no knowledge.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. But they would have had access to resources that could have allowed them to have this kind of expertise

available?

Ms. DEVANY. Well, especially if they were working in association

with the EPA experts who did the air sampling later.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

I see that my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a question,

but one is just a word of thanks to you, Mr. Chairman and ranking

member and staff, for holding this very important oversight hearing, and to the witnesses to thank them for their testimony, and

especially to the three witnesses whose families have been impacted. I appreciate my colleagues’ opinion that we need to base

our statements and efforts and actions on fact, but your testimonies are fact. The experiences that you have had in these trailers is a factual experience, and each of you presented your experiences very well, and that is going to be very helpful to this committee as we go forward and try to get to the bottom of this issue that

should have been gotten to the bottom of a long time ago.

The unexcusable response of FEMA in how it responded to your

and other inquiries asking for assistance and your own individual

efforts to get to the bottom of it, you shouldn’t have had to have

done that. So we appreciate your efforts and, as a parent, Mrs.

Huckabee, sometimes as a parent you just know what the cause of

a problem is, even if you can’t prove it, but you know.

Each of you should be commended for being willing to come forward and, through your personal efforts, not just to have a result

for yourselves but for the greater good and looking out for others.

I am not sure with all of you, but I know, Mr. Stewart, you referenced your past service in uniform, both with law enforcement,

as well as in the military, and we are grateful for that service, and

yet again serving your fellow citizens here today, as well as with

your fellow witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Platts.

Mr. Cooper.

173

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the witnesses.

I am sorry that our skeptical colleague is no longer able to be

with us, Mr. Souder, because I thought he raised some interesting

questions.

We certainly want to get all the evidence, but I haven’t seen this

level of Government incompetence outside of the Nation of China.

You know, when I first heard about this contaminated living conditions, consumer products, things like that, uncaring government,

that is what first sprang to my mind, and they executed an official

in China for not having done their job.

You know, no one is asking for that here, but how about a simple

application of the Golden Rule? My wife is from the Gulf Coast.

She survived Hurricane Camille. President Nixon’s administration

supplied a trailer. They lived in it for a year. It was a great experience. Everything worked.

All we are asking for is for Government to work just as well 40

years later. So perhaps our Republican colleagues will want to join

us in having Government work as well as it did in the Nixon administration. That is not too high a goal. [Laughter.]

But let’s apply the Golden Rule. If you put exhibit B up on the

monitor, the one home that FEMA apparently did test with living

occupants, the Sistrunks, on April 6, 2006, these were the levels in

their manufactured housing unit over an 8-hour period. Right side

of the master bed, 1.2 parts per million.

We will disregard the inside-the-cabinet reading because, granted, that is probably going to be too high. Nobody lives inside a cabinet. But this other reading I found particularly touching. ‘‘Bunk

bed in small bedroom, 1.2 parts per million.’’ Who sleeps in bunk

beds in small bedrooms? Kids. Our precious children.

You know, I would feel a lot better about the skeptics if they

could identify for me one high Federal FEMA official or one high

industry executive who put their kid in a small bunk bed under

these conditions. Then I would feel like the Golden Rule had been

applied and we were doing unto others as they were doing unto us.

But I haven’t been able to identify that FEMA official. Maybe he

or she is about to testify in a later panel. I haven’t been able to

identify that industry executive that is adhering to that simple,

common sense, back-home standard.

That is what really worries me about this. The people of the Gulf

Coast are fine people. They have been through incredible hardship.

For them to face not only Hurricanes Katrina and Rita but Hurricane FEMA—which may stand for Failed Every Major Assignment—I am not talking about the rank and file folks, because they

seem to have showed amazing common sense. When the field people report problems and their lawyers higher up say, ‘‘Don’t test at

this time because then you have to deal with the results’’—and this

is from an e-mail that was sent by a gentleman on June 15, 2006—

‘‘Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK.’’ The reasoning

for that was, ‘‘Once you get the results, and should they indicate

some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to

them.’’

Well, the clock is running any time there is a small child in a

bunk bed in any one of these units breathing this terrible stuff.

174

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of you for holding this hearing. This

is long overdue. We have to clean up FEMA. We have to help the

people in the Gulf Coast and all the areas of danger in our country.

And I am tired of some of our colleagues making excuses for Government and these industry folks until they show us that the Golden Rule has been applied.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, thank you. In 10 seconds of my time

as a Republican——

Chairman WAXMAN. Let me just say nobody is apologizing here.

I think we have been very clear, Government didn’t respond here

and is responsible. When you say Republicans, I hope you are not

talking about the ranking member and others who have been very

critical of FEMA here.

If we really want to go back to low standards, we go back to the

Carter administration. There is a lot of blame to go by, but we try

to keep this hearing on the up and up, and I appreciate the gentleman’s comment.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I also am not apologizing for anyone in the Federal Government,

particularly not in FEMA. I am sorry that my colleague from Indiana left, because I will tell you all something that you don’t know,

you have no way of knowing, but the night before we had the vote

to appropriate $52 billion for hurricane relief for Katrina we raised

a lot of the issues—he did, I did, and a couple of other Members—

about the use of trailers, because we saw in the plan the number

of trailers that were going to be purchased. We questioned how

quickly those trailers would be available, where they would be

used, how would the community absorb them. A lot of questions

came up about this, and we were not given very satisfactory answers, so you will not find me to be an apologist for the administration or FEMA in this area.

I voted against the Katrina funding of $52 billion at one time because I said there was no accountability, there was no plan, we

were doing this too quickly, and I think that is a major problem

that we have in our Government.

I do, though, appreciate my colleagues also mentioning that we

need to have a balanced hearing.

I am very sympathetic with all of you all for having problems.

I think, Mr. Stewart, very few of us have experienced what you

have described—coming home and having everything gone. That

has to be so devastating. But what we need to do is we need to use

your feedback to us as a way to fix the system. We are not doing

enough of that in this committee. That troubles me.

My constituents come to me and tell me about problems and I

go out there and try to solve those problems. I look for how to make

systemic change. That is why I got on this committee, because I

want to see systemic change. I don’t care whether it is a Democratic administration or Republican administration. Government

employees are there to serve you. That is my attitude. That is the

attitude of my staff. And it should be the attitude of every person

who works for any level of government.

175

I want to mention that a couple of weeks ago we had a bill here,

H.R. 404, and I raised the issue about that bill sounded great but

it accomplishes nothing. Representative Cuellar came to me and

said, let’s try to make this better, and we have been working on

that bill to set standards for customer approval, customer appreciation.

What is lacking in that bill is what Representative Cooper talked

about—establishing responsibility and accountability and consequences. It is unconscionable to me that you would call a FEMA

employee and not get the kind of response you would get. If you

are telling them you have problems, they should solve that problem. That is their goal. You are not a problem to them; you are the

reason they are there.

But it just points out so many parts of our Government are dysfunctional. We have too large a Federal Government. We cannot do

these things at the Federal level. FEMA should be a coordinating

agency, in my opinion, and most of the work should be done at the

State and local levels. We are taking the power away from the people who can do the work and putting it in the hands of people who

simply are not on the ground and don’t know how to do it.

As far as the quality of the trailers or the campers is concerned,

I think we definitely should look into that and make sure we don’t

ever have these kinds of substandard things done, if they were. But

I do agree with Congressman Souder—we need to know all the

facts. We need to know the proportion and we need to find out why,

if there was a really bad unit made, what caused that to happen

and why that won’t happen again, and getting to the systems is

what we need to be doing so that the people are served better.

I hope this committee, Mr. Chairman, will start taking a broader

view, instead of just the sensational things. Again, what you experienced is very personal and very tragic, but it is meant to sensationalize. That doesn’t accomplish a lot except to raise our awareness, and it only accomplishes something if we followup on it in a

systematic way. That is what I would like to see happen.

I thank you for at least giving constituents this opportunity, because I listen to my constituents and then I work on what they talk

to me about.

Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

I just want to point out to the gentlelady that I knew from my

own experience what a good job FEMA could do. When we had an

earthquake in California, FEMA was right there. They helped. People were grateful. We recognize that. We don’t approve the FEMA

operation, but we have to identify problems, not just accept the fact

that they can’t be resolved.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, Mr. Harris?

Mr. HARRIS. May I reply to Ms. Foxx?

Chairman WAXMAN. That is up to her.

Mr. HARRIS. I would share this with the chairman, as well. I

must say this, when you are in a dilemma and you are needing answers, when you are dealing with FEMA—I am not talking about

conjecture or a parable or a story, I am telling you what happened.

These are not imaginary things, and when you deal with FEMA

176

after you lost everything you have, they do not respond, or they

have not responded in a way that you would think would be equitable when you are in a situation.

I can identify with Mr. Stewart and Mrs. Huckabee. When you

talk to them, there is no sense that there is something that is going

to be answered or handled.

So as far as sensationalizing, I don’t know about that. As far as

it being Republican or Democrat, when I call FEMA I don’t tell

them what party I am. I am just trying to get some help. And what

I think in my lowly position is that they have not been able to remedy us. I don’t want to speak for them, but when I call, I feel just

as confused after I called as what I did, because I don’t know what

to do.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, could I make one quick comment?

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, one quick one.

Ms. FOXX. What my position is, you should be able to write down

the name of that person that you are not getting an answer from

and have some place you can go to and get a response and get feedback, and they know that if they don’t treat you right there will

be consequences. That is the problem with our system now, there

are no consequences for bad performance on the part of Federal

employees. There are many wonderful Federal employees who work

hard to do their job, but when you are not being treated right, you

should have some mechanism for alerting people to that.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

I want to recognize my colleague from California, but one of the

consequences, if they have to come here before the Congress you

may call it sensationalizing, but we are going to make people answer through oversight for the lack of due diligence and responsible

actions.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your ability over the

years to bring truth and speak truth to power.

Sensationalizing? Let me sensationalize it even more. I was a

member of the California State Senate. I moved into a new office.

They came in and gave me new carpeting. They put it down with

glue. They painted my walls and they brought in naugahyde furniture.

I became violently ill. I went to doctors in Sacramento, in Los

Angeles, wherever I could. I spent thousands of dollars of my own

money, not government money, my own money to find why my eyes

were tearing and red, my nose was running, my face was swollen,

a terrible odor was coming up, my stomach cramped. This happened over a period of months, and I had all kinds of skin tests.

I find out I was allergic to something called formaldehyde. Are

you aware that glue that sticks carpet and tile has formaldehyde

in it? So the construction of probably your trailer had formaldehyde

in the glue that held component parts together.

It wasn’t until a doctor sent a team in to test the air. They wrote

me a six-page letter, single spaced. I had to take it to the Rules

Committee. The Rules Committee said I could have my office

redone because it takes 21⁄2 years for formaldehyde to gas out; 21⁄2

years. And as long as that substance is there in the building component parts, you are breathing it in. It will definitely affect your

177

entire system, because it goes up into your T-zone, it affects your

brain, it affects your concentration, it starts to destroy the

meninges of the brain. That is that thin skin. It could eventually

kill you.

So if I haven’t sensationalized it enough, I will bring the letter

and submit it to the Chair as evidence.

I have not seen a department so incompetent as Federal Emergency Management Agency has been in the last 6 years. I watched,

like the world did, the response to Katrina. It was shameful.

So I want to apologize to you.

And for my colleagues who are saying we don’t have a statistical

base, we only need one. We don’t need thousands. And when I read

an e-mail like I am going to share with you right now—and this

is something that went to FEMA and this is the response from one

employee. ‘‘I received guidance from our IA policy group at HQ.’’ I

imagine that is headquarters. ‘‘According to HQ, there are no

health concerns associated with the formaldehyde inside our FEMA

MH/TT.’’ Those are trailers. ‘‘We were given instructions to turn on

the heater for an hour, then turn off the air and open all the windows and turn on the air for 48 hours.’’ This will eliminate the

smell. It will not eliminate the cause that is sickening the people

who live there, because the formaldehyde is in the materials that

hold the unit together. ‘‘If you have any questions or concerns, feel

free to contact me.’’

Now, that is denying that these trailers are emitting a substance

that really takes 21⁄2 years to gas out. This is a scientific fact. So

you coming, speaking truth to power—and we are the power—I

want to commend you for that. You cannot deny what is true.

FEMA has failed us.

I argued long and loud not to put FEMA under Homeland Security. You have too many levels of bureaucracy. So Brownie, you

have done a good job. Just to let you know that it is cronyism and

incompetence that has put us in this situation. I apologize to all

of you for the failure of our Government.

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. I see we have another panel,

and I am fine at this time. I would be happy to yield to Representative Jindal.

Mr. JINDAL. I thank my colleague for yielding. I also want to

thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing.

First of all, I want to echo my colleagues’ comments, especially

to our two residents that had to live in these trailers. You deserved

to be treated better. Nobody can excuse what you had to endure.

I have often said it is almost like there were three disasters;

there were the storms; in Louisiana there was a breaking of the

levees; and then, third, there has been the bureaucratic response.

I wish I could tell my colleagues I believe these to be isolated

cases. We know personally these aren’t isolated cases. We have gotten dozens of calls in our offices. We share the same frustration as

the witnesses we are hearing from today when we called to seek

better treatment, whether it was replacement trailers, alternative

housing arrangements. We literally had a constituent who had one

178

lung, was living in a trailer, decided to move back in their moldy

apartment thinking that was safer for them than the formaldehyde

in their trailer.

There is absolutely no excuse for how these witnesses and the

others that can’t be here have been treated. Let’s be clear about

that. No excuse.

I have a couple of questions, but I want the witnesses, especially

the two gentlemen that have had to live and endure through this,

to know there is no excuse for the way you have been treated. You

said it exactly right, sir. You are an American citizen. You are a

taxpayer. It wasn’t your fault these storms took away everything

you own. There was no excuse for you to have to be a victim of your

own Government’s incompetence.

Mr. Stewart, again, please take your time. I have just really two

questions, one for you and then one for Dr. Needle, as well. Mr.

Stewart, you indicated that you made several calls to FEMA to

complain about the conditions in your trailer. You report that the

results from the American Chemical Center’s kit showed elevated

levels of formaldehyde. You complained that FEMA still would do

nothing to address this issue, refused to help.

Later we are going to hear testimony today from FEMA. We are

going to hear testimony from FEMA that they immediately responded upon receiving complaints. I know for a fact that is not

true. I know we didn’t have success in getting responses for many

of our constituents, even after they brought medical documentation,

even after they were able to prove they or their children were suffering due to these elevated levels of formaldehyde, and we did get

a response. We did get a response. So often the response was something as ridiculous as, well, open the windows, run the A/C, as if

that was going to solve the problems in these trailers, especially

when you saw formaldehyde levels higher than what would be acceptable for workers if this was OSHA, higher than what was acceptable for FEMA’s own inspectors. How in the world could they

expect you and your family, you and your wife, how can they expect

other families, how can they expect children to simply just open the

windows and not worry about it?

It is a leading question, but I still want to give you a chance to

respond according to the best of your recollection. I want you to

have a chance, because we are going to hear later today from

FEMA that they responded quickly to every complaint. We know

that is not true.

I want, to the best of your recollection, after you complained to

FEMA how long did it take for you to get a response? Did you ever

actually even get an adequate response? We have heard from your

testimony what happened, but I certainly don’t think it was proper

you had to use your own reinsurance money instead of rebuilding

your home to instead have to provide yourself with temporary safe

housing. But after you complained, how long did it take? And did

you ever get an adequate response?

Mr. STEWART. First of all, it is not really a leading question, but

no, I did not ever receive an adequate response. If I had, I wouldn’t

have had to buy my own camper. I think that can speak for itself.

I can also say that if you want proof positive that FEMA failed

to react, why is it that a citizen has to tell FEMA, Listen, first of

179

all there is an OSHA study out there that says these campers are

contaminated, No. 1? No. 2, why does a citizen have to go out and

seek out assistance from a chemical sensor company in the United

States to send me a free sensor so that I can test my own camper?

I tested my camper because FEMA would not, and I took it upon

myself to do the research and the work that FEMA should have

done in the first place, so for FEMA to ever try and say they reacted quickly, you know, when I complained, I don’t know how anybody can possibly say that, because there is nobody in this room

that would go to the extent that I went to without having to be

forced to do so. If FEMA had said, we are on the way out with

someone to test your camper, I would have been more than glad

to let them in and test it and we would have been on our way.

Even after that, I gave FEMA chance after chance. I actually told

FEMA before I ever went through this process, I am going to test

my camper and I am going to tell you what the results are, which

I did. I called them and said, Here are the results. They still refused to act. At that point I even told them, Listen, this camper

is toxic. One, I want a new camper; and, two, I want to know how

you are going to go about testing other campers in the community

because I can’t be the only one. There are tens of thousands of my

friends living out there in these campers, and I want to make sure

they are safe. And if you don’t do that, I am going to do everything

I can to publicize this issue, because the people have to know what

is going on, so either you fix it or I am going to do what I can to

fix it.

I tried as hard as I could to get FEMA to react, and they failed

to. They just knowingly failed to respond.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Stewart, if your time allows, I hope you will

wait and listen to the testimony of the second panel, because when

we hear, as a congressional committee, when FEMA comes and

tells us they did respond quickly to every case, if your time allows

I would like you to be here present to hear that.

I would like to thank both the witnesses. You represent so many

other people that can’t be here today from the Gulf Coast that

should not have had to endure this.

There is a woman in Baton Rouge who has now died. They

haven’t yet proven that her cancer was related to formaldehyde,

but many families have complained they had asthma, they had respiratory problems, they had prolonged exposure to a carcinogen,

and instead of getting prompt attention to their complaints they

were met with stonewalls, they were met with frustration. They

were denied any help, and many times they were told their health

claims simply weren’t real, even though they saw it was happening

to them and to their children.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have exhausted my time. I have a second question. I will save it if we have another round of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jindal.

Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also would like to join in this joint apology or collective apology

to the three of you. This is unconscionable, and this is one of the

reasons that I think I and many others of the freshman class ran

180

for office—to try to deal with the type of inefficiencies and abuses

of the Government that we have seen.

I would also like to respond to something that Mr. Souder said.

I understand his sensitivity, but I read this whole hearing a little

bit differently. I am willing to stipulate that the industry has a

pretty good record of providing safe products, and I think it is simply the fact that this appears to be such an aberration that it

would call into question why FEMA didn’t look at, even if it were

only 58 cases—we know it is more than that—and say, wait a

minute, there is something very wrong here, because these manufactured homes should not be this way.

I think it is specifically because this is so unusual that FEMA

should have had red flags all over the place and taken action.

But I want to get to the issue with you as to maybe how widespread these incidents were. I know when the committee announced that it was holding hearings, we heard from a number of

organizations that have been dealing with this issue. One of them

is called Alabama Arise. A man named Zach Carter, who was an

organizer there, submitted some written testimony to the committee because he couldn’t appear.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to make that part of the

record, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

Mr. YARMUTH. He stated in his written testimony, ‘‘I have met

and video interviewed dozens of Katrina victims in South Mobile

County, and I can say that almost each one has complained to me

about health problems that they have developed since moving into

their FEMA camper, from nosebleeds and bronchitis to high blood

pressure.’’

David Underhill of Mobile-based Sierra Club has informed us

that almost all of the dozen FEMA campers that organization tested had had problems with formaldehyde. We have had testimony

from many, many people. So I am interested in knowing, particularly with the three of you—and I am not familiar with the setting

in which you lived, but I assume you lived in an area where there

were many people in similar circumstances living in FEMA-supplied campers. Did you have conversations with these people to

share their experiences? Would you elaborate on those for us?

Mr. STEWART. Sir, immediately after my test results came out

and were publicized, I was contacted by the Sierra Club and took

part in assisting them in testing campers in Bay Village, which is

a FEMA trailer park in Bay St. Louis. I will tell you two things

that were shocking. No. 1 was the number of trailers that tested

with excessively high formaldehyde. Of all the campers that were

tested, 88 percent had formaldehyde levels that were deemed

unhealthy.

The second and almost the scary thing is that when you walked

in and asked these people, this is who we are. This is who I am.

I tested my camper. My camper was high. Can we hang a test kit

in your camper to make sure that what you are living in is safe?

Almost unanimously the first response was, as long as it is OK

with FEMA, because I don’t want to lose this house, because if I

lose it I am going to be living back on my slab.

The fear of FEMA was so strong that people would rather live

in an unhealthy environment than to be back on the street, because they feared FEMA would come in and snatch that house

right out from underneath of them.

When the first media event happened and I had publicized what

happened to me, the reporter who did the report, he was living in

a FEMA camper, too. We actually joked back and forth, because we

had already heard of FEMA coming in heavy handed and taking

campers away from people, and we actually contemplated what

happens if this thing goes out. You may lose your house, too, because he was living in a FEMA camper.

There is a deep-rooted fear of people living in these things that

someone is going to come in and snatch up their house.

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, I just have a few seconds left, so I would

like Mrs. Huckabee and Mr. Harris to comment also about their experiences, if you had conversations with others.

Mrs. HUCKABEE. I, too, at school meetings and at play dates and

things like that. Conversation would come up about somebody not

being there because their child was sick again and again and

again. It was the same type stuff—asthma symptoms. I cannot

count the number of people I know that have had children born

since the storm and they all have asthma. It used to be something

where every once in a while you would hear of somebody, but I

think almost literally every friend that I have that has had a child

194

born since the storm, they have turned asthmatic, and they are all

in the FEMA trailers.

Mr. HARRIS. I would like to just quickly echo and say yes. As a

minister, what we try to do is help people during the times that

they are feeling very vulnerable and the times that they are feeling

inadequate, and I want to tell you that there are trailer parks and

other areas where people are suffering. I must say again to you,

please hear me, it is not an imagined thing what Mr. Stewart is

saying. There is a fear. There is an element that they make you

feel like you ought to be glad you have this. Congressman, I can’t

over-emphasize that. So when we are saying this to you, please

hear me.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. We hear you very loud.

Mr. HARRIS. Bless you.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by first thanking all the witnesses. I really appreciate your taking time to come and to share with us. Let me say

right from the outset, you know, I have enough proof. The fact that

you are here and you have indicated in terms of your views and

you talk about the children and your sick children and the problems that you have encountered, that is enough proof for me.

Of course, I come from New York and I know about 9/11. I remember even with EPA, when they indicated the fact that there is

no problem, and then now all of the sudden people are having respiratory problems, and now people are saying I think maybe something did occur. Well, I think that your coming and sharing with

us is something that we need to get on top of right away because

I must say here we go again.

To think about the fact that the lawyers basically said no testing

until you contact us, I mean, that to me sort of smells like a coverup, and I think that we cannot afford to have a cover-up.

One of my colleagues on the committee here went on to say no

proof, but people afraid to complain, that is normal. I mean, if you

are dealing with a big Government agency and they are saying that

we are going to give you this, even though it is not right, you still

don’t want to complain about it. A lot of people fall into that category, and a lot of people will suffer before they will actually complain.

But the point of the matter is that I am concerned because you

said that FEMA was treating them like a charity case. Well, that

to me is very troubling, because when you have a family member

that is suffering, you are suffering, and a lot of your friends are

suffering, and you are trying to do something about it.

I think Reverend Harris mentioned we are helpless but we are

not hopeless, but at a point some people begin to become hopeless,

and they just feel that nothing can be done, nobody cares about the

situation, and I think that your coming here and sharing with us,

indicating the fact how people’s eyes are burning and how they are

tearing, and for us to hear in an open way that FEMA’s priorities

seem to have been upside-down, they were more concerned about

protecting themselves, protecting their image, rather than protectVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
195

ing the people. That is the thing that I think is coming across very

loud and clear to me.

I do have one question I probably want to ask you, Dr. Needle.

Will you please turn to exhibit K, this e-mail exchange between

FEMA and the Gulf Stream Coach discussing the trailer’s occupant. If you turn to the bottom of page 7 you will see an e-mail

that says, employees after interviewing a trailer occupant, it reads,

‘‘He has been experiencing numerous respiratory problems. Upon

advice from his doctor—’’ that is the occupant talking, occupant of

the trailer—‘‘is requesting the manufacturer’s safety data sheets in

regards to types of solvents, glues, or adhesives used in manufacturing the trailer. The applicant states that the trailer stinks like

formaldehyde.’’

Now, if you turn to page 3, in the middle of the page a FEMA

lawyer responds and says, ‘‘The program should not be dealing

with applicants on the formaldehyde issue without first coordinating with the lawyers of FEMA and the Department of Justice.’’

And FEMA’s field employee responds in the middle of the page.

He says, ‘‘OK. If I interpret this correctly, we are at all stop on providing material safety data sheets to requesters.’’

Doesn’t that seem to be a cover-up?

Dr. NEEDLE. I don’t know if I can speak directly to that, but——

Mr. TOWNS. Let me put it this way, Doctor. In the case of a doctor has advised his patient to try to learn what chemicals might

be causing his respiratory problem, do you think that is a reasonable request? You can answer that one.

Dr. NEEDLE. Absolutely. I agree that it would be. Yes.

Mr. TOWNS. Yet FEMA’s lawyers see it as their job to prevent information from being conveyed to the trailer occupants. Does that

seem to be right to you?

Dr. NEEDLE. I think, as the documentation is coming out, both

from what we know and from also what the committee has discovered and is relating to us, I think it is becoming clear that FEMA

has known about this problem for much longer than at least any

of us suspected. I mean, I can tell you, for instance, that we on the

ground in Mississippi and Louisiana were raising attention to this

issue well over a year ago, and at that point FEMA’s spokesperson

said—I am paraphrasing—basically everything was under control

and that there were no health concerns. And what we are finding

today is that even at that very time there were individuals within

the Agency that felt otherwise.

Mr. TOWNS. You know, it sounds like a cover-up to me.

Anyway, my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so

much.

I do thank all of you for coming, and I really, really appreciate

your sharing information with us, because I think that the message

is clear and that we want to do whatever we can to try and fix it.

Thank you so much.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Towns.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for your testimony. I want to rebut the notion that

Government is inherently incompetent and can’t do the job, which

is a direction you can head in when you hear the kind of testimony

196

that is here. In my view, Government is there. It is an instrument

to be used for good or bad, and it depends on leadership. For this

kind of thing to happen, you either have to have uncaring leadership or incompetent leadership. There are only two choices, because

if you have leadership that is caring, then the only way something

like this happens is if it is incompetent. If you have leadership that

is competent, then the only way this could be allowed to happen

is if the leadership is uncaring. So we are probably at the beginning of a process, Mr. Chairman, that is going to continue to bring

forth more information and evidence. We can get to that issue, and

we are going to have testimony later.

Who is dis-served by this? I want to say I hope you don’t feel that

we are over-indulging in the statements that are coming forward

here, but I think it reflects the level of anger on the part of members of this committee. But who is dis-served? Obviously, you are

dis-served, first and foremost, the people that should have been

helped. But, in addition, I know that there are FEMA employees,

rank and file people in the field, some of whose expressions of caring have been documented here today, who are going to watch this

hearing and they are going to say, that is not us. We care, and we

do the job in a competent way. But the leadership that is coming

from above has either tied our hands or neglected us, and then it

spills over and affects you. So they are being dis-served.

The third constituency that is being dis-served is everybody in

this country, because we keep grasping for examples that we can

do things right when we face these challenges, and we keep seeing

instances where we are screwing it up. Again, that comes back to

leadership.

I want to ask you, Mrs. Huckabee, to answer this question for

me. Tell me about those moments in the middle of the night, because I am sure they happen, when you thought to yourself, am I

going crazy? Because what I hear is common sense. There are no

experts. You are the experts. You are there. You are trying to protect your family. You see what has happened. You walk in. You see

your daughter covered in blood. Yet, every time you try to penetrate the system and get them to respond you are the one who has

to come away wondering whether there is something wrong with

you, whether your assessment is somehow flawed when you see all

around you all the evidence that something is going on. So tell me

about those moments when you were sitting there saying, Am I

going crazy? Because I bet that happened.

Mrs. HUCKABEE. There are so many of them. I mean, my daughter woke up in the middle of the night coughing, crying, wheezing.

My son with the sinus infections over and over again. I mean, you

begin to think, if FEMA is saying there is nothing wrong with

these trailers and there has to be something. I even had one FEMA

representative on the maintenance line saying, are you sure that

you are not exaggerating your children’s symptoms? They said that

they had people trying to claim they had formaldehyde to get bigger and better trailers and things like that.

I mean, I assure you I even went back to the pediatrician’s office

and said, look, can you give me the list of dates that I was here,

because it seemed like we were there so often. I wanted to make

sure in my own mind because I thought surely my kids have not

197

really been there once a week for the past 18 months. And I even

called the receptionist and said, can you give me the list of dates

that I have been there and called and everything.

I mean, it is just terrifying because you know that there are people who look at you and go, Now why can’t you just keep your kids

healthy? They have these seemingly apart simple, little things that

should be able to be fixed, and it is all five kids over and over and

over again. Of course, outside of the situation I would look to the

mother, too, and be, like, what is she doing wrong, because kids

don’t just stay sick like that.

Mr. SARBANES. It is incredible that you would be asked if you

were exaggerating the situation, because when you are captive like

that, the human response is to try to under-state it to yourself, because you don’t want to be left thinking that you are not doing the

right thing for your children. You mentioned that when you said

you were hoping for a diagnosis of an allergy so that you would at

least not have to face the prospect that you were putting your children in harm’s way for some other reason.

This is the position that you are being put in, and I would just

say to all of the witnesses: don’t let anyone else be the experts.

Don’t let anyone else tell you that you are crazy or that you don’t

understand what is happening in your own home with your own

family. We are here to respond to what you have brought forth.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Murphy, you are next, but before I recognize you I want to

call on Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Let me just pick up for 1 second what Mr. Sarbanes observed.

I mean, I think in this case, when you take a look at what everybody is going to say today—and I rarely defend lawyers, but the

lawyers, from their perspective, were doing their job in protecting

the Agency. The people in the field were saying we have a problem

and sending it up the chain of command, and it just kind of all got

garbled. Everybody is doing their job and nothing happens.

We can all sit here and agree that the end result was not the

result that we want. We weren’t taking care of the people. They

forgot the mission, that the duty ultimately isn’t to the Agency, it

is not to the bureaucracy, it is to the people they serve. But very

rarely do you get rewarded for stepping outside that model and

stepping over the rules and the regulations or getting outside your

assigned place to do that. That starts at the top.

We can legislate all we want, but at the end of the day it goes

with the leadership, and the mission in this case, with the crisis

there after the hurricane, was to serve the people. People were

doing their jobs. It didn’t work, and it can’t happen. That is why

your stories here today are so important as we go through.

I don’t want to point fingers at anybody, except we had a system

that just didn’t work.

Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

I just want to comment. The lawyers weren’t doing their job. The

lawyers’ job should have been to get in there and clean it up. That

is how you avoid liability. I can’t imagine how many lawsuits

198

FEMA is now going to face because they tried to cover up their failure, their shameful failure to do their job.

Mr. Murphy, it is your turn. I know the witnesses are anxious

to jump in, as well, but I am going to call you next.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Rarely do I defend lawyers and Henry

goes after them, so this is kind of the opposite. [Laughter.]

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I got to spend a few days in New Orleans a few months ago and

got to actually spend a little time in one of the trailers with a resident who is there who is desperately searching for housing. She

was renting before she took a trailer. That property is no longer

available, and she has a story, like thousands of others who are

doing everything within their power to get back to normal living,

whether rebuilding their house, repurchasing a new house, re-renting again. This problem continues, and may continue for a very

long time, because it is going to take a long time to rebuild not only

the housing stock of the people who owned houses, but also the

thousands of people who rented there who have seen the prices go

through the roof to make some of that rental housing affordable,

even if it is still there.

I wanted to touch upon some of the testing that actually was

done. We have talked a lot about the testing that was not done and

the fact that FEMA knew. FEMA staff on the ground tried several

times to get that testing done. The reports became so prolific that

the Sierra Club stepped in to do testing, which resulted in the end

in results coming back showing that there were dangerous levels

above those recommended by scientific experts.

Ms. DeVany, I wanted to point that question to you, because I

know you were involved in coming up with the protocols that the

Sierra Club used, and would ask you just to talk a little bit about

the advice that you gave them and how you believe those tests

went.

Ms. DEVANY. I did advise the Sierra Club on methods for testing,

and, just in general, when we design protocols for doing air sampling, we want to catch actual real values. I think this goes back

to what the chairman said, what Mr. Davis said, that not only was

FEMA trying to cover up, but they engaged other Federal agencies

in their cover-up. They had the EPA design sampling protocols that

were, as an industrial hygienist, bizarre. Why would we take

empty trailers, open them and ventilate them 24 hours a day 3

weeks straight and then decide that is how we are going to figure

out the formaldehyde levels?

Then, in addition to having the EPA design, like I said, bizarre

protocols, they got two scientists from the ATSDR—the Agency for

Toxic Substances Registry—and, instead of using their own standard of 0.03 parts per million, these scientists changed their level

that is so high and causes such physiological damage that it actually, at that level, the 0.3 parts per million, causes the bronchi to

constrict enough that it restricts the airway enough to cause

wheezing, asthma, and an emergency situation.

That level is the one they chose. Instead of using the safe exposure level, the ATSDR chose a level of concern. And then they analyzed EPA’s results using that skewed baseline.

199

Mr. MURPHY. Ms. DeVany—and I see Dr. Needle shaking his

head, as well—do you have any opinion as to why they chose that

level, despite a number of sources of literature suggesting a much

more reasonable standard?

Ms. DEVANY. All I can say, in my professional opinion, is that

they did this in order to minimize the actual extent of the problems

in these trailers. I have no other conclusion I can draw as a scientist analyzing this. And I have done this all my life. I can’t believe it was done. I think it was complete violation of our professional code of ethics.

Mr. MURPHY. Do you have faith in the results of the Sierra Club

trials, given your input into how those were conducted?

Ms. DEVANY. There were some problems there, too. I mean, in

an ideal situation I would have recorded what the ambient temperatures were, the range during that time, what the humidity levels were, if anyone smoked inside the trailer or not. But, by and

large, they were realistic samples of what people were being exposed to. They didn’t artificially try to elevate them by putting the

samples inside cabinets and closing the door. They were pretty realistic, I believe.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Stewart, you had some experience in the Sierra

Club trials, as well. What was your experience with those trials?

Mr. STEWART. In my circumstance, in particular, if the test

showed anything it was that the test was actually on the low end,

because my test was done, as she just stated, not under perfect

conditions. My windows were open, the exhaust fan was on, and

there was an air purifier, an industrial one, working at the time

I did the test. So even at the 0.22, that was a low ball figure from

that standpoint.

And then I did walk around and put these in other campers, and

I can say that I don’t think there were any in the middle of the

summer in Mississippi that didn’t have the air conditioning on and

trying to keep the place cool. So from a humidity standpoint and

a temperature standpoint, I think they were relatively common

throughout the campers.

I did just want to say one thing, if I could.

Mr. MURPHY. My time is up.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Sarbanes, I just wanted to say one thing. I

think that an organization can be uncaring and incompetent at the

same time. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. When you

call FEMA and, one, they don’t do anything and, two, they treat

you like you are a criminal, I think that is a level of incompetence

and uncaring together at the same time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Your time has expired.

I want to recognize now our colleague, Mr. Melancon, who is not

a member of this committee, but I want to point out that he wasn’t

a member of the Select Committee looking at Hurricane Katrina

and all the damage that was done, yet he spent more time at that

Select Committee, put more hours, and tried to do what is right for

his constituents, and I want to commend him for that and ask him

now to proceed with his question period.

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking

Member Davis, who was chairing at that time the Select CommitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
200

tee on Katrina. My only regret is that Chairman Davis’ leaders put

a sunset on the committee at a time when we should have been

opening up more investigation. But that is in the past. Now we are

having to start anew.

The people that are here today, Mr. Chairman and other Members, first they were devastated by the storm. I would guess all of

them got screwed by their insurance companies—excuse the rash

word. Then the Government failed to show up, or at least failed to

show up in a friendly manner to say I am here to try and help you,

not here to give you anything, I am here to try to give you a helping hand. That is what is consistently not happening.

The gentlelady a while ago talked about the $52 billion and concern for the delivery. Well, that was in September 2005. At the end

of February 2007, $52 billion still had not been spent and delivered

to the sites along the Gulf Coast. That $52 billion that was spent

didn’t get to the people that are sitting at this table. That $52 billion didn’t get to the local governments to put their water systems

back up or whatever. You got entire communities in an area that

encompasses about the same size as Great Britain that were affected by two storms, two of the most horrendous storms this world

has seen, not to speak of that this country has seen.

We talk about the chain of command and the problem you have.

I visited with Mr. Paulison about a year ago, I guess it was, Mr.

Stanley and I, and I was very excited because I felt like I got somebody that understands and can maybe get this Department

straight. I am hoping that the tail didn’t start wagging the dog, but

we will see where we go there.

One of the things that I have seen or feel that I see is departments of Government being run by their attorneys who put the fear

of a lawsuit in front of the Secretaries and the administrators instead of saying, let’s figure out how we can get things done, and

done right for the good of the people, and spend the money wisely.

It is really, really frustrating.

Mr. Stewart, a while ago you made a comment, and it hit

straight home. One of the things that we argue about here in the

Congress is housing for the people that were displaced. Everybody

wants to get back home. They want to move their families back

home. Yet, what did we do as a Government? Every available property that was for rent—and I can attest to this in New Orleans—

was occupied by Government contractors or FEMA workers, while

the people who wanted to get home, FEMA was trying to put them

in trailers and mobile home parks everywhere but where they came

from, and it should have been just the opposite. Let those workers

commute in to the disaster area to work every day and put the people back where they needed to be.

They are still trying to get trailers. We have not only the formaldehyde calls, but we had the problem with getting trailers. I

think up in Hope, AR, there are still about 8,000 trailers sitting up

there. When somebody said, why do you have all these trailers,

well, we decided we would save those for the next disaster.

Well, there was a tornado through Arkansas 150 miles away, and

the Member of Congress from that District basically had to raise

unmitigated hell to get eight trailers over there to help put people

201

back on the ground in the community so they could start working.

There is no logic to it at all.

The chain of command does not exist. I put people in a room

from FEMA or ask them to get into a room with local government

and contractors and whatever, and they will find a reason. Usually

it is, we can’t meet with the contractor. Well, why the hell not?

Some silly rule? Some attorney?

You go to the people. I found when we find somebody in FEMA

that tips over the line and says, Let me try and do this, because

it will help move you along, they usually are gone within a couple

of weeks. There is turnover, and, of course, the excuse is they get

weary working down in that disaster area, and so they need to rotate them out. Well, the people are weary, and what they need is

some people to stay around there and understand the situation and

be as frustrated as them because their Government isn’t doing anything for them. Then maybe they would be hollering, but they are

afraid they are going to get fired. That is what their problem is.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for opening these hearings back

up. I commend all the chairmen of all the committees and the leadership of this House for opening up what is one of the biggest

messes that I have witnessed in my entire life.

We still have a chance to get it right. I will tell the story real

quick before my time is up. I hear a lot of people running around

about those people, you know, they are always looking for something. I have a good friend that is a physician. He is about 63,

going on 64 years old. He is very comfortable. He has done quite

well in his life. He lost his office, everything in it. His practice is

over. Lost the hospital. Thank God his daughter, who had a

preemie, demanded the hospital take the baby and evacuate it with

her; otherwise, that baby would have been one of the casualties.

He lost his house, everything in it. He was gone for the usual 3

days, came back after the storm. Everything. He raised his children, his family in that house. His daughter has gone through a

divorce, some of which you can pin mostly on the trauma, the insurance issues, those kind of things. They went to tear down their

house, demolish it. All the kids, it was like a funeral.

As they tore the house down they got a call that his father-inlaw passed away from a heart attack that morning.

Now, this is a physician who should recognize that he needs

anger management, and he is in depression, or signs of depression,

and he doesn’t see it but his friends all see it. We are dealing with

people that have been jerked around for 21⁄2 years, and it is time

we stopped it. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, it is by the power

of the gavel. I commend you for it, and I hope that you and more

Members will follow through in these areas so we can get to the

bottom of this whole mess.

Thank you. I am sorry for running over time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Melancon. I appreciate what you had to say. You are constantly pushing for us

to do more.

I want to thank this panel. You have been terrific. You have

given us your testimony and you have given it with emotion and

power, and it is a compelling testimony that each and every one

of you has given to us. Thank you so much.

202

Next we will hear from the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but I want to take a 5-minute break, and then

we will reconvene and go right into Mr. Paulison’s testimony.

We stand in recess for 5 minutes.

[Recess.]

Chairman WAXMAN. Our committee will now hear from R. David

Paulison. Mr. Paulison has served as Acting Director of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency since 2005. He was confirmed by

the Senate as Director in May 2006.

Mr. Paulison, we want to welcome you to our committee today

and recognize you for your testimony, after which we will have

some questions.

STATEMENT OF R. DAVID PAULISON, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it very much.

Let me say before I even start that I have heard very, very clearly. The reason I sat in this meeting while the other witnesses were

testifying, I wanted to hear what they had to say and wanted to

hear it personally, and I have heard very clearly some of their

issues. If what they are saying is accurate, particularly with the

customer service area, I have obviously a lot of work to do in that

area and will work on that. But also, for these three particular

residents, we will followup to make sure that we take care of their

issues and find out if there are more.

As the Administrator of FEMA, I want to assure you and the citizens of our Nation that we are aware. We are aware of the concerns regarding the presence of formaldehyde in FEMA travel trailers and are taking responsible steps to address that as we speak.

Chairman WAXMAN. I neglected to swear you in. The part you

just said you cannot be held for perjury for having said it. [Laughter.]

But I would like to ask you to be sworn.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. PAULISON. This part I can be held, right?

As my written testimony, as you read, explains in greater detail,

we have been proactive in reviewing the situation. We have recommended a wide range of actions that reduce health risk and

have been working with the experts to better understand the

health environment and investigate additional short and long-term

solutions. I wish to make it very clear that the health and safety

of residents has been and continues to be our primary concern.

Following most disasters, those displaced from housing by disaster are able to obtain or are provided with short-term, temporary

housing just outside the impacted area, then after a short period

they can return to their homes. With the immensity and size of

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this simply was not possible. Facing

an area of devastation roughly the size of Great Britain, FEMA

provided over 120,000 mobile homes and travel trailers to individuals and families throughout the Gulf Coast area. This was the

largest emergency housing mission in the history of this Nation.

Six months after their initial deployment, FEMA received the

first complaint of formaldehyde-related odors that we are aware of.

203

After a prompt review, FEMA replaced that unit in just a few

weeks on March 19th. Since that time FEMA has documented just

over 200 complaints of strange odors, including what we think is

formaldehyde, and of those 200—and not to minimize the issue, but

just for record—we have replaced 58 of those formaldehyde concerns, and five more have been placed into rental housing sources

once they became available.

One thing I want to clearly point out, though, whether the number of calls is 2 or 200, I am concerned with the potential health

implication of formaldehyde in our travel trailers and want to better understand and address this very complicated issue.

FEMA is working with the Center of Disease Control and Prevention, with EPA, working with HHS, working with HUD, working with Public Health Service, and also the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Health Affairs, and with industry partners

to help investigate the situation. We know that formaldehyde is

present in many household products, construction materials, and

produced by tobacco smoke and gas cooking.

Although ventilation and other actions reduce the levels, anecdotal experience that we have seen recently, especially from the

physicians that you have heard from today and others caring for

residents of trailers, has raised questions about the overall indoor

quality and/or air quality of travel trailers and the practicality of

ventilation advice, especially given the Gulf Coast region in the

summer time.

As we have gained experience and more knowledge, we have expanded our efforts to research the levels of formaldehyde in the

units and their impact on health of all of our residents.

Despite 30 years of research and reports on numerous Federal

agencies, there is now no existing consensus on safe formaldehyde

levels in residential dwellings, so again we are looking to the experts for advice.

This June the Department of Homeland Security officials, including FEMA, again met with CDC, the National Center for Environmental Health, the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,

and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Together,

we are beginning both short and long-term investigations. In fact,

FEMA and CDC are scheduled to begin phase one of a study in the

Gulf Coast within the next few weeks. In the meantime, FEMA

continues to take action through updated trailer purchase specifications, improving training to FEMA and medical staff who respond

to complaints, and continued education and communication with

the residents. We have also increased our efforts to move residents

out of temporary housing into longer-term housing solutions.

FEMA and the entire Department of Homeland Security are committed to ensuring that victims of disasters are safe and have a

healthy place to live during the recovery period. The health and

safety of the residents is my primary concern. This is the concern

of everyone involved in researching and addressing formaldehyde

based issues. We will continue to evaluate, communicate, and mitigate the potential risk of formaldehyde or any other safety issue in

our temporary housing units. Together with our Federal and private partners, we will work to develop sound best practices for reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
204

ducing formaldehyde exposure in FEMA-provided and temporary

housing.

Mr. Chair, I do want to thank you for this hearing. I look forward to discussing FEMA’s recovery efforts with the committee.

And, as I talked to you earlier, I hope at the end of the day when

this is done this Government, perhaps with the help of this committee, can come up with some sound standards that we can apply

to not only travel trailers and mobile homes, but all housing units

across this country.

Again, thank you very much. I am ready to answer any questions

you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paulison follows:]

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Paulison.

Without objection, Mr. Davis and I will start off the questioning

at 10 minutes each.

Also without objection I wanted to put a couple of documents in

the record before I start questioning here.

There is a statement by Paul Nelson, board member, South Bay

Communities Association. I would like his testimony to be inserted

in the record, as well as testimony by Becky Gillette, vice chair of

Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club. Without objection, those

two documents will be made part of the record.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Nelson and Ms. Gillette follow:]

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison, if I understand your testimony, you seem to be saying that there is nothing you can do because there is no official standard for formaldehyde? Is that what

you are telling us?

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir, I would not say that at all. I think there

are a lot of things that we can do. But I can say that there are no

standards to go by, and I hope that we can set those standards for

this long-term test that we are going to do.

What I am saying that we have taken the best evidence that we

can, the best advice we have so far about airing out trailers, trying

to reduce the levels of formaldehyde.

We know now and we did not know earlier that is not going to

be sufficient during the summer time, particularly, in the Gulf

Coast area when the heat is there. You can’t open the windows and

run the air conditioner at the same time. It is simply not going to

work.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison, for over a year and a half displaced residents of the Gulf Coast have been telling FEMA that

formaldehyde in their trailers has been making them sick. One

hundred and twenty thousand families have stayed in these trailers. There are approximately 76,000 trailers in use in Alabama,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and, despite all this time and

the obvious importance of this issue, the documents that you provided to our committee indicate that FEMA has only tested one occupied trailer, and that is a trailer in Baxterville, MS. It belonged

to a pregnant woman, Dawn Sistrunk, and her husband, Carlton

Sistrunk, who had a 4-month old child. The trailer was tested only

because of their unusual persistence.

I want to show you a chart. It will be on the screen. The lefthand bar of the chart is in green, and that is the guideline set by

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

[NIOSH], for 8 hours of exposure in a workplace setting. That is

0.16 parts per million. If an employee, according to NIOSH, is subject to levels of formaldehyde greater than that, NIOSH recommends the employee use a respirator.

The next bar is a yellow one, and that is NIOSH’s ceiling for 15

minutes of exposure. They recommend that workers only be exposed to formaldehyde at levels as high as 0.1 parts per million for

no more than 15 minutes.

EPA has identified 0.1 parts per million as the level at which

acute health effects can occur.

The next two bars are standards set by the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, and if workers are exposed to formaldehyde levels above 0.5 parts per million, exposure monitoring

and medical surveillance is required. The same standards also provide that worker exposure be limited to 0.75 parts per million over

an 8-hour period.

These are the old standards. These were set when President

Bush’s father was President.

The next bar is an orange bar. It is EPA’s acute exposure guideline level, which is designed to guide emergency responders in understanding the risks from a one-time exposure such as might

occur after a chemical spill. The EPA guidelines for formaldehyde

225

states that a one-time exposure to formaldehyde at levels of 0.9

parts per million should not lead to irreversible harm.

And then we come to the last bar on the chart, and this bar represents the 1.2 parts per million level of formaldehyde that was

monitored in the bedroom of the Sistrunk’s trailer on April 5, 2006.

This level is 75 times higher than the level that NIOSH recommends that workers not be exposed to.

I have a statement I put in the record from the Sistrunks that

they reported all kinds of problems, including headaches, watering

eyes, irritated throats. Their doctor told them the problem was due

to formaldehyde.

Now, do you think that the formaldehyde level that they were exposed to was safe?

Mr. PAULISON. Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in formaldehyde and I am not going to attempt to even address that. I can tell

you that we recognize that we have an issue. We know that very

clearly the answer to this is to get people out of these mobile

homes and out of these travel trailers as quickly as possible. We

are——

Chairman WAXMAN. Well let me tell you what FEMA said in response to this level of formaldehyde. FEMA and industry experts—

this is your Agency said this, ‘‘FEMA and industry experts have

evaluated the small number of cases where odors of formaldehyde

have been reported, and we are confident that there is no ongoing

risk.’’

Mr. Paulison, how can you justify that statement that was put

out by your agency? You tested only one occupied trailer. You found

levels 75 times higher than safe. And then FEMA comes out and

tells the public, ‘‘We are confident there is no ongoing risk.’’

FEMA’s statement that there is no ongoing risk was false. A level

of 1.2 parts per million is not safe, and this is 75 times higher than

what NIOSH would say.

There is only one reasonable way to respond to testing results

like this, and that is to take the issue seriously, immediately conduct systematic testing of all these trailers to find out how widespread the problem was. That is exactly what your field staff recommended. They said the problem needs to be fixed today and that

FEMA needs a proactive approach. They said there is an immediate need for testing. But you didn’t do testing from FEMA. Why?

Mr. PAULISON. We did do testing. We tested new trailers that

were locked up to see what the level was when we received the

trailers, and did, once we ventilated those, did ventilation work to

reduce the amount of formaldehyde. The answer was yes. However,

like I said in my statement, we are recognizing that in the summer

time that is not going to be reasonable to do that.

So we are taking this very seriously. We are doing the testing.

We are starting in just a couple of weeks to do some short-term

testing. We want to take what the Sierra Club did—which, by the

way, was a wake-up call for us to receive that report that we have

something more than just an individual, isolated case. We recognize that we may have something much larger than isolated cases.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison——

Mr. PAULISON. So we are going to expand what the Sierra Club

did, doing much more scientific——

226

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison, I am going to interrupt you.

You got a wake-up call? You must be a very hard sleeper, because

that wake-up call was over a year ago, and FEMA did no further

testing. After you received these results, your attorneys put out a

statement through e-mails that implied that FEMA is going to own

this issue if you do testing. That shows a complete indifference to

the welfare of the families living in these FEMA trailers, because

no testing was done and your lawyers said if you do testing you

may start owning the problem. What do you make of that?

Mr. PAULISON. The attorneys are hired for a particular reason,

and they are there to protect from litigation; however, the Department did not stop dealing with the formaldehyde issue, regardless

of what our attorneys said. We were going——

Chairman WAXMAN. Did you test any other occupied trailers?

Mr. PAULISON. We did not test occupied trailers.

Chairman WAXMAN. So you tested——

Mr. PAULISON. We went along with the advice that we received

from EPA——

Chairman WAXMAN. And your lawyers?

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir. And CDC, if I can finish my sentence,

please, and CDC that if we ventilated the trailers that would reduce the formaldehyde issue.

My concern is——

Chairman WAXMAN. Did you test to see whether it did reduce the

formaldehyde levels?

Mr. PAULISON. It did in our testing on the empty trailers.

Chairman WAXMAN. On the empty trailers where the fan was

going, where the windows were open, where the air conditioning

was running 24 hours a day? What about where people were living?

Mr. PAULISON. Mr. Chair, we were not formaldehyde experts. We

were taking this as it went along, as this thing developed and got

larger and larger. We recognize now that we have an issue. We are

dealing with it in the best manner we can. Again, the

alternative——

Chairman WAXMAN. EPA told you the following: ‘‘The 14 day exposure maximum may be 0.03 parts per million, and the 1-year

level may top out at 0.008 parts per million. The levels we find

after testing may well be more than 100 times higher than the

base levels.’’ If you are relying on EPA, they were telling you this

was a problem, as well.

Mr. PAULISON. I am telling you, in hindsight we could have

moved faster. I am telling you now we recognize we have a problem. We recognize we have an issue. We are not even sure if it is

formaldehyde that is causing the problem. That is why I have

asked CDC to test for not only formaldehyde, I want them to test

for airborne bacteria, I want them to test for mold, I want to test

for mildew. I want to look at the different trailer manufacturers.

If your attorney would sit down let me finish, we want to test

for everything out there. I want to test the different trailer sites.

I want to test the different manufacturers. I want to find out very

clearly what the issue is and where the problem is and what we

can do about it.

227

Again, the answer is to get people out of the travel trailers. We

have never had this type of——

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison, the staff a year and a half ago

said you should be testing the occupied trailers. The testing didn’t

take place. Your lawyer sent an e-mail saying if you test them you

may take ownership of it. You said you didn’t follow the advice of

your lawyers. You said you followed what EPA had to say. EPA’s

statement is that the levels that they were seeing were too high for

human health.

Now, there may be other problems, but you don’t think, even at

this date, that the formaldehyde levels were too high and might

have endangered public health? Is that your testimony?

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir. What I am trying to tell you is we simply

did not have a grasp of the situation at the time. As it went on,

we are getting a better grasp of the situation. We are advising people what to do. We are telling them numerous issues. I am telling

you where we are moving forward with this organization. You can

criticize me for what we did or didn’t do, but I am telling you we

understand there is an issue, I do care about the residents of these

trailers. I will——

Chairman WAXMAN. You think my criticism is unfair?

Mr. PAULISON. Pardon?

Chairman WAXMAN. Do you think my criticism is unfair?

Mr. PAULISON. I think it is because we are looking at things in

hindsight and not how they were at the time. We are now recognizing, as we have all along, that we do have an issue, and we are

going to deal with it. We have——

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison——

Mr. PAULISON. We are moving——

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, I know you are telling me what you are

going to do, but your own staff said what you should have done a

year and a half ago. That is not hindsight. You didn’t have the

foresight to listen to your own staff, but you did have the wrong

judgment to listen to the bad advice of your lawyers.

My time has expired and I am going to recognize Mr. Davis for

his time to question you.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paulison, your testimony indicates there are approximately

200 known complaints about formaldehyde, but data you provided

shows you have over 60,000 trailers still in use?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. How many units did you actually deploy

for Katrina and Rita?

Mr. PAULISON. We had a little over 120,000 between Katrina and

Rita.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What is your trade-out policy? In other

words, if someone were to complain, don’t you still have trailers sitting there in Arkansas somewhere?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. We do have a large trailer base in Arkansas. If we have a formaldehyde complaint and we go out to the

trailer and talk to the people expressing those symptoms, we offer

to exchange that trailer out, and we will do that. In some cases we

have changed trailers out twice. We try to bring in a used trailer

228

that has been off-gassed for a long period of time. We clean it up

and bring it in and change that out.

In some cases, where it still has not worked, we have put people

in apartments.

One of the issues is about 80 percent of that 60,000 that are in

travel trailers are actually backed up in people’s driveways while

they are rebuilding their homes. Those people do not want to move.

The other 20 percent are people in the group sites. We are focusing

in getting those people out of those group sites because there is not

necessarily a plan in place that they have where they can move

out.

We know the answer is to get people out of these. Again, this

was the largest emergency housing effort the country has ever

done. We have never had an opportunity to keep these numbers of

people in travel trailers that we have used for 20 years in situations like this, so this was something new for FEMA to deal with.

In hindsight, maybe we could have moved faster. We are moving

about 600 to 800 families a week out of travel trailers into apartments.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. But you heard the previous panel and

the stories that they endured. Why didn’t you just give them a new

trailer? It is pretty clear they had a problem.

Mr. PAULISON. These three, I don’t know why they had the troubles they did. We will look into that.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you think, in retrospect, after hearing

the testimony, you should have just given them a new trailer?

Mr. PAULISON. They should have been dealt with with much

more respect, from what I heard, and I will find out why that happened. That is obviously a customer service issue. The philosophy

of this organization is to treat people with respect and give them

the respect that they deserve and to take care of their needs as

quickly as we can.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, it sounds like some of the people

on the ground understood that, because they said we have a problem, they got the complaints, they filtered it up, but it sounds like

that has not infiltrated in the General Counsel’s office.

Mr. PAULISON. The General Counsel does not set policy for this

organization. They do give advice to us. They do deal with litigation issues. I set policy for the organization.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. But you did follow their advice, in terms

of some of the documents that have been produced. They

stonewalled us, as Mr. Waxman noted, until the end. That comes

out of the General Counsel’s office. I mean, I think they need some

adult supervision over there, because I think they have lost any

customer service aspect of this. I think they are just hard-line attorneys.

We are really here trying to solve the same problem.

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We have done numerous hearings on

where FEMA is. We will have to do another one, I think, on what

we are doing to prepare for next year.

I understand the General Counsel has a bent that they are trying to protect the Agency and everything else, but they need to understand, in a case like this, you are first of all a customer service

229

organization, so instead of saying we are going to delay this, we are

going to cover this up, they ought to be looking at ways to get the

job done.

As I have looked at the documents and e-mails—and I think Mr.

Waxman agrees—that wasn’t the direction they were going at all.

Mr. PAULISON. That might not have been the direction the attorneys were going in, but that definitely was not the direction that

the organization was heading. The organization was progressing

down the road as this thing progressed to stay up with it and find

out what the problems were. We felt like we were dealing with it

in the best manner that we could.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Can you tell us why there wasn’t a telephone number on the brochure that was given to trailer occupants

so if there was a formaldehyde problem or some other problem they

could call a central clearinghouse?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. There are 27 different maintenance

groups that take care of these trailers. It is posted in every trailer.

We want the people to call that number, and not a general number

that would not be able to deal with their problem. It would not

make sense to put a number on the brochure when the residents

are advised and told when they have a problem with the trailer to

call that maintenance number. That system works pretty well.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. All right.

Let me just get back to the General Counsel’s office a minute. I

mean, this hearing wasn’t on the calendar until the middle of last

week. It was a direct response to FEMA’s production of documents

made last Monday, July 9th. FEMA withheld documents citing attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine, but in the

face of subpoena the documents were produced. As has been noted,

they tell an unfavorable story.

All of our staff tells us the documents were arguably not privileged. For these privileges to be recognized—and they are not applicable to Congress, by the way—you must carefully and methodically lay out a case. If you claim attorney/client privilege, you need

to produce a privilege log. You need to produce redacted information. You need to write us a narrative articulating the potential

harm to the United States if the privileged materials are disclosed.

Your lawyers didn’t do any of this: no privilege log, no narrative

articulating the harm, no redacted documents. They didn’t even put

date numbers on the pages. Were you involved in any of the decisionmaking about this legal strategy?

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir. My philosophy is to run a very open organization, and I want to personally apologize to the committee for

you not getting the documents you wanted in a timely manner nor

in the method that you needed them. We have since turned over,

I think, pretty much everything you have asked for, but you should

have gotten it when you asked for it the first time.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes. Let me just go through it again. The

legal strategy with regard to the so-called privileged documents

ended up doing you in. Your lawyers complained about privilege,

and then, when it was time to show your cards, there was nothing

there. You were just hiding all the smoking guns. Things might

have been different if you had come up with the materials to begin

with.

230

Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Waxman?

This should be a message to other agencies out there where we

see some of the same things. By drawing so much attention to

them, you essentially placed a gigantic spotlight in the worst possible place.

Now, I guess the question this committee has to ask, is this a

FEMA problem? Is this a DHS problem? Or do you think it is a

Government-wide problem?

Mr. PAULISON. I don’t know that I can answer that. I can tell you

that my philosophy is to, when the committee needs to do an investigation, to give you every document that we can legally give you

in a timely manner. That did not happen in this case. Again, my

personal apologies for that. We will work to make sure that does

not happen again.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Now, Mr. Paulison, you are neither a

doctor nor a scientist nor is FEMA a medical or a scientific agency.

How are you qualified to assess the health risks from formaldehyde

or recommend strategies to address the issues?

Mr. PAULISON. You are correct. I don’t have that expertise. Thirty years as a paramedic, but that doesn’t give me a background in

formaldehyde issues. We lean on the advice of our experts. That is

why I am going to all of these different agencies, not just one,

working with the ones that I laid out earlier—with CDC, with

EPA, with HHS, with HUD, with everyone who deals with these

types of issues—to give us very clear advice and we can make some

sound decisions.

Yes, in hindsight we could have moved quicker than we did; however, we do recognize we have a problem. I do recognize it is something we need to move very quickly on. That is what we are going

to do.

I want to find out what the extent of the problem is, but at the

end of the day I also want to be able to come up with something

this country has never done, and set some good, solid standards

down that we can use for future mobile homes and future travel

trailers so we don’t have this problem in the future.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Now, your agency has been using travel

trailers and mobile homes for as long as people can remember,

haven’t they?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Has this issue ever come up before on

this scale?

Mr. PAULISON. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you have any historic knowledge in

the Agency so that you can see if this has happened——

Mr. PAULISON. I have asked several people inside the Agency

have we had this problem before, and nobody can remember of any.

We are going to go back and search our records to see, but as far

as anecdotal, nobody that I have talked to recalls anything like this

before.

But also we have not had this number of people in travel trailers

for this amount of time, so these problems that are cropping up are

obviously things we have to deal with, but it is not something we

had any experience with.

231

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you think they were because of the

number and the rapid production, that maybe something was lost

in that? Where do you think it came from?

Mr. PAULISON. That I don’t know, and that is what we need to

find out. We need to find out why we have an issue, is it the travel

trailers, is it the fact that they had flooding. Again, we don’t know

what the real problem is. I mean, my gut feeling is—I can’t go by

gut feelings, based on what happened with the Secretary—there is

an issue inside the trailers, but I don’t know whether it is formaldehyde or mold or bacteria or whatever it is. That is what the

CDC is going to tell us.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You are not positive at this point? You

are waiting for the CDC to say if it is formaldehyde or from another source, but you are working with CDC to resolve it?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. But in the meantime, if people are having problems we are going to be much more aggressive as far as

trading these trailers out and trying to find—we are working very

hard to try to find housing for people. There simply is not enough

housing in the State of Louisiana or Mississippi to move these people into. The ones that are backed up into their driveway rebuilding their house don’t want to leave the State and go somewhere

else; they want to be where their homes are, where their jobs are,

where their friends are, something they are familiar with.

And we are trying desperately, as apartments come back online,

to move people out of those travel trailers into apartments, because

we know that is the real answer. They should not be in these little,

tiny travel trailers this long. It is not a good place to live. We recognize that. But that was the only tool that FEMA had in its quiver to be able to get people some decent housing on the ground very

quickly, and that is where we are.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, we have seen a number

of e-mails that, again, just show the lawyers were reluctant to

move forward on testing. Liability seemed to be their chief concern,

not customer service. Any sophisticated organization needs to factor in liability concerns when responding to a crisis. I was a General Counsel. I understand that. But at the end of the day isn’t it

better, from a liability standpoint, as Mr. Waxman said, to be aggressive for the health and safety of the people that FEMA houses?

If it turns out to be a manufacture problem or caused by some

other external entity other than the U.S. Government, aren’t we

better positioned if we aggressively minimize the negative health

effects? I think that was your point, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. PAULISON. The answer is obviously yes. I mean, the easiest

way to deal with litigation is to deal with the problem, and that

is what we want to do.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Paulison, you said in hindsight you wished you would have

gotten the materials to us earlier, even though your people were

trying to hide behind an attorney/client privilege excuse not to give

it to us, and you apologized to us for the delay. You also didn’t get

your testimony in 48 hours in advance. We got it in last night after

8. You apologized to the committee. Do you think you owe an apology, in hindsight, to the people who have been suffering illnesses

232

because of formaldehyde in your trailers that were not tested by

FEMA?

Mr. PAULISON. Sir, I don’t know that would resolve the answer.

I feel very, very badly for the people that are becoming sick. I don’t

know 100 percent for sure it is the trailers. I mean, it very well

may be. We made what we felt were very prudent decisions along

the way. Could we have made different decisions in hindsight? Obviously, the answer is yes. But, again, it is a problem we have

never dealt with before. It is an issue where we thought we were

moving along with good advice. You know, we all look back on decisions we made, and if we had a chance to redo some of them we

would do that.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paulison, thank you for your patience.

In a direct response to one of our Members who asked you about

your General Counsel, you said the attorneys don’t set policy, I set

policy. So let me see where you would go with setting a policy by

addressing these questions.

Would you agree that formaldehyde can be harmful to one’s

health?

Mr. PAULISON. That is what medical experts tell me. I don’t have

personal knowledge of that, obviously. I don’t have that type of

training.

Ms. WATSON. Would you agree——

Mr. PAULISON. Everything I——

Ms. WATSON. Yes? No?

Mr. PAULISON. Everything that I read says that long-time exposure to formaldehyde can cause medical problems.

Ms. WATSON. Would you agree?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. What I just said is what I agree to, that everything that I have read and everything that I have been told

is——

Ms. WATSON. No. Just answer my question. Do you agree? Yes?

No?

Mr. PAULISON. I stand on my answer I just gave you.

Ms. WATSON. Would you agree that formaldehyde can be harmful

to one’s health? Yes? No?

Mr. PAULISON. I don’t know the 100 percent answer to that, Congresswoman. I am trying to be very respectful. I am saying that

what I have been told is the answer is yes, that long-term exposure

to formaldehyde could cause medical problems.

Ms. WATSON. I can tell you scientifically it does, and all you have

to do is go and be tested for formaldehyde exposure. Maybe that

will make you a believer. So you are not so sure yourself? That is

what I am getting out of your response, because I asked you for a

yes or no and you gave me a lot of other verbiage, so I will take

that answer as not being sure.

Mr. PAULISON. Ma’am, I am not trying to say that. You know,

you are asking me to——

Ms. WATSON. No. I asked you do you——

Mr. PAULISON. You are asking me to give you a medical opinion,

and I am not qualified to do that. I am telling you what I have

233

been told: that long-term exposure to formaldehyde can cause medical problems. I heard what you said earlier.

Ms. WATSON. But you are not sure? OK. So if you say that longterm exposure as, I guess, provided by someone else, would you

then take your contaminated stock out of your inventory?

Mr. PAULISON. The answer is yes. If we have stock that we cannot get rid of the formaldehyde in or reduce it to acceptable levels,

then we should not be using it.

Ms. WATSON. Well, I can tell you this: it is a substance that is

in the building materials, and if that substance is there, that is the

cause of the health conditions of the people who are living in there.

I mean, it doesn’t air out for years. As long as it is there, it is going

to cause a problem to health.

Knowing that, would you then remove those trailers? Now, I understand there are millions of dollars in FEMA that has not gone

to benefit many of the victims, and so can you get rid of your stock

that is in question and replace that stock that has no formaldehyde

in it?

Mr. PAULISON. We are getting ready to do some very significant

testing of the travel trailers that are being occupied under some

very tough conditions, ones that have been cooking in, smoking in,

all the types of things that cause formaldehyde——

Ms. WATSON. Let me just interrupt you from that explanation. If

you find the presence of formaldehyde, would you take those trailers out of your inventory?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. If we find trailers that have unacceptable—

formaldehyde is everywhere. You can’t get rid of it. But if we find

some unacceptable levels of formaldehyde we cannot mitigate, we

will trade those trailers out.

Ms. WATSON. That is the point I am getting to. Let me restate

my question. If you find there is formaldehyde in the building parts

of the trailers, would you take those trailers out? Or are you looking for a certain level of formaldehyde?

Mr. PAULISON. I think we would be looking for a certain level.

There is probably formaldehyde in this room. There is formaldehyde in your clothes. My permanent press shirt has formaldehyde

in it. It is everywhere. Our body produces formaldehyde, from what

my people tell me. If you——

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Paulison, excuse me. My time is up.

Mr. PAULISON. I am sorry.

Ms. WATSON. My time is up, and I am going to give it back to

the Chair. But I can just say that if you have humans inside of

your trailers, I would think you would err on behalf of the human

condition and take those trailers out of your inventory. You can

test them later. But we do know that formaldehyde, almost any

dosage, has an impact on one’s health. I would hope that you, as

the policymaker, would see that all of your stock that might have

trailers in it would be free of formaldehyde.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Administrator, thanks for your testimony. Certainly, while

we have concerns about inadequate response of your Agency on this

234

issue, we appreciate your efforts and your staff at all levels in trying to do right by their fellow citizens.

I do have a couple of questions that are, I guess, followups, one

on the health question that the previous speaker addressed with

you. I appreciate you are not an expert and that, based on what

you have been informed——

Mr. PAULISON. Can you speak up? I wear a hearing aid and I can

hardly hear you. Sorry.

Mr. PLATTS. Let me try to speak more into the mic.

Mr. PAULISON. Too many sirens and air horns. Sorry.

Mr. PLATTS. In response to the gentlelady’s questions regarding

exposure to formaldehyde, you said, based on what you have been

told by experts and have read and been informed, that long-term

exposure to formaldehyde can be harmful to your health?

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct. It could be harmful to your

health. Yes, sir.

Mr. PLATTS. You also, I think, have been told that even shortterm high exposure can be harmful to your health, as well?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. PLATTS. And I think that is part of the issue here, and the

testing that has been done, and the chairman’s, different standards

is at different levels for different levels of exposure. How long you

are exposed impacts how high or low that level is before it is of

concern, and that is your understanding, as well?

Mr. PAULISON. I’m sorry? Could you repeat that again?

Mr. PLATTS. Depending on how long you are exposed and what

level would impact whether it is a health risk?

Mr. PAULISON. Again, that is my understanding.

Mr. PLATTS. OK. You have acknowledged that the testing conditions under which your Agency moved forward are now inadequate

and unrealistic, especially for the summer months. Is there at least

some acknowledgment that should have been understood up front,

that it seems unrealistic, the approaches taken, and that the testing, if it was going to be in unoccupied trailers, at least should

have been under normal conditions that could have been expected?

Mr. PAULISON. I think in hindsight, you know, you can always

say yes. Again, I think this Agency made the best decisions it could

with the information that it had. Looking in hindsight, should we

have started testing individual trailers back in January or an earlier time, you know, working out issues with the CDC trying to define the problem? You know, you can always say yes.

Mr. PLATTS. Now, when those conditions were set for that testing, because by what has been shared with us it seems very much

the case that the General Counsel’s office was clearly what you

stated about avoiding litigation. I would say about avoiding possible liability. If I heard your statement right, you said attorneys

are hired for a particular reason, to protect against litigation. I was

an attorney. I don’t believe that is why attorneys should be hired.

They are hired to give counsel what the law is so that policymakers

comply with the law, not to avoid litigation.

Mr. PAULISON. And I didn’t mean to narrowly define it. All the

other issues you said are correct, also. It is all of those type of

things. It could be good legal advice, but they also work, just like

any attorney does, whether corporation—but, again, they don’t set

235

policy for me. They were not giving me direction not to do testing.

We were making decisions we thought were prudent at the time.

We did test trailers that were new to see did they come with formaldehyde. The answer was yes.

And could we do something about it? At that time the answer

was yes. But now we know that we have to do something different

than we have done in the past. Just like we are rebuilding this organization after I took over after Katrina, a lot of problems. A lot

of cultural problems. A lot of systemic problems. We are in the

process of fixing those. This is one of those things we have never

dealt with before. We may not have dealt with it in the best manner we could have, but now we learned from that and we are going

to do that.

Mr. PLATTS. I am going to run out of time here. I appreciate this

effort of rebuilding and getting it right. One piece of advice I would

share is that if you have a liability at hand and there is litigation

and yes, it is better for all parties if you can settle it, as opposed

to going to court in a long, drawn-out court case, but their duty is

not to avoid litigation in any sense, in other words, liability, and

that they would be reminded of what their duty is.

But a specific question is: regarding those testing conditions, was

the General Counsel’s office consulted or legal counsel consulted in

any fashion in how the conditions were set regarding the testing

that was done?

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir, not that I am aware of at all. We wanted

to do the right thing. We thought we were doing the right thing

at the time.

Mr. PLATTS. I want to get into quickly a specific case. Mr. Stewart, who testified earlier, clearly his case was mishandled by many,

including right down to when supposedly, based on his testimony,

at least 15 FEMA personnel were onsite, yet those 15 people

couldn’t see that they delivered a trailer that was wholly unacceptable, bugs in the bed, the septic system apparently not working.

As you go forward, I hope, as you stated in your testimony, you

are going to look at those three cases specifically and followup with

them.

What happened that 15 or more FEMA personnel were onsite

and yet delivered an unacceptable trailer? And what consequences

occurred? In other words, was anyone reprimanded, disciplined in

any way for such failure of service to someone in need?

I do appreciate that you are trying to get it right, and hindsight

is a lot easier, but one of the aspects of hindsight is making sure

that there are consequences for wrongful action, not where there

is good faith and something just went wrong, but when there is

just failure of good diligence. In that case, if the facts that he

shared are anywhere close to accurate, there was a significant failure of good service, and there should be a consequence for that.

Mr. PAULISON. And I am going to look very carefully at all three

of these cases from a customer service perspective. I need to find

out was his statement accurate. I’m sure with 15 people there I am

sure I can find out, and we will investigate that.

We want to provide the best customer service we can. The philosophy of this organization that I put in place since I have been here

is that the victim comes first, above everything else that we do,

236

and that is what we want to do. And if that has not happened in

these particular three cases—there may be more, according to Congressman Jindal, who is doing a great job, by the way, down

there—then that is where I need to work on also.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you.

Mr. PAULISON. Along with getting ready for hurricane season.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you again for your testimony and your service.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Administrator, I have to tell you I would feel a lot better if you

agreed to do the following. Again, I want to go back to what one

of the witnesses said. He said there is a sense of helplessness and

hopelessness.

Let me tell you what you need to do. You have people who may

not even know they are in trouble that are living in these trailers

right now. What I would like for you to do, Mr. Administrator, is

put the word out and say that if you suspect, if you are having

vomiting, you are having all the things, to all these people who are

in the trailers, let us know and we are going to address your problem. That is what I would like to see you do.

Mr. PAULISON. I will do that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Good. We are going to hold you to it.

Mr. PAULISON. I will do that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because I just feel that there are people in jeopardy right now, and you don’t know how much better I feel about

that because of the next line of questioning.

The documents show that several occupants have died while living in FEMA trailers, and that there were concerns that formaldehyde could have caused the deaths. Sadly, one of the occupants

passed away just last week. On each occasion, FEMA was made

aware that formaldehyde may have been a factor, and on each occasion nothing was apparently done.

Mr. Paulison, please turn to exhibit M. This is an internal FEMA

e-mail from June 27, 2006. I am going to read it so that we all can

hear it. It says, ‘‘A FEMA applicant was found dead in his trailer

at St. Tammany earlier today. We do not have autopsy results yet,

but he had apparently told his neighbor in the past that he was

afraid to use his A/C because he thought it would make the formaldehyde worse. It may not have anything to do with formaldehyde,

but I agree with Mark that we need to deal with this head on.’’

On the following day this issue was raised again. If we turn to

exhibit N, you can see in this e-mail that FEMA was committing

to testing the trailer in order to better understand the reason for

the fatality. The e-mail reads, ‘‘There was a death yesterday in a

travel trailer in Slidell blamed on sensitivity to formaldehyde.

Ratcliff got together a conference call with CDC, FEMA, Environmental Protection Agency, housing and safety. We will monitor the

trailer in question as soon as we get access to it.’’

There were 28 officials from six agencies on the conference call.

They recommended that FEMA take six actions. These actions included: determining the cause of death; sampling the air in the

237

trailer; requesting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to vet

FEMA trailers against the industry standard; and identifying an

independent, non-governmental agency to conduct tests of indoor

air quality and evaluate these policies. This is exhibit O, page 3.

These were sensible recommendations. Do you know whether

they were implemented, any of them?

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir. I am not familiar with the conference call

and I don’t know whether they were implemented or not.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK.

Mr. PAULISON. I do know that the cause of death of the particular person—and our hearts really go out to the families. My father

died from emphysema, so I know that lung disease is very difficult—is up to the medical examiner and the physicians to tell us

the cause of death, so we should not even get into that at all.

I don’t know if any of these things were implemented, but I will

find out and report back to the committee on that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, the committee asked for every document

that FEMA had about formaldehyde. We searched and searched for

evidence that FEMA followed up on this death, as the Agency had

recommended, and we could find none. Instead, we found an e-mail

from a FEMA lawyer that called the recommendations ‘‘not acceptable’’ and told FEMA not to do anything. That is very interesting.

Mr. PAULISON. Again, I was not aware of this particular conference call, but I will followup.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am so glad that Mr. Waxman scheduled the

hearing, the witnesses the way he did, because usually people like

you come first and then the other witnesses, the victims, come second. But earlier you were here to hear the testimony and Mr. Cooper stated a very interesting question. He was talking about a

study that found 1.2 PPMs of formaldehyde, I think it is, in a bunk

area. Did you hear that question?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And he said he wondered whether administrators or anybody would allow their child to sleep in such circumstances. Would you allow yours?

Mr. PAULISON. The answer is no. I can give you a straight answer.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Alright.

Mr. PAULISON. That test was taken with a closed-up trailer with

the air conditioners off, and probably was not conducive to what

was really happening under actual living conditions. However, if I

give you an answer, the answer would be no.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Mr. Paulison, just last but not least,

because you said something that is very, very important and I

want to make sure the record is abundantly clear. You are going

to put out a notice to all of these people—and correct me if I am

wrong—who are in these travel trailers letting them know of all of

these things that people complain of that are natural, usually the

things that people complain of with formaldehyde, letting them

know that there is a way that they can contact somebody to have

this thing checked into so that we will not have victims sitting

there helpless, hopeless, and uninformed.

I know your lawyers—and I am a lawyer—are worrying about

your liability and everything, but let me tell you something: at the

238

rate we are going, if we have tens of thousands of people sitting

in these trailers, we are going to have a problem. So you are committing to us today that you are going to put that word out? And

that when these people call, they will be calling somebody?

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Mr. PAULISON. I have committed to do that and I will do that,

and I will give you a copy of the notice that we send out.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank you very much.

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paulison, I guess you say my goodness, what goes around

comes around, because you are now meeting me in the third committee in which I serve, my own subcommittee, which has primary

jurisdiction over FEMA, the Homeland Security Committee, which

has jurisdiction for Homeland Security purposes, and the Oversight

Committee, which always has oversight over Government operations.

Do you recall that the formaldehyde story first broke many

weeks ago when you came before me on another subject altogether,

and at that time, because it had literally just broken, I asked you

about the formaldehyde, and do you recall saying that there was

no danger and that you had been told that what people should do

is open the windows?

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Where did you get that advice from, sir?

Mr. PAULISON. I got that advice from the EPA and CDC, that if

we could air out the trailers that it would off-gas the formaldehyde.

That was information we had that——

Ms. NORTON. What would they say about that advice today?

Mr. PAULISON. What we are saying now is, given it is summer

time in the Gulf Coast——

Ms. NORTON. It was summer time then.

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. That probably is not a practical solution. Again, you know, we talked about this earlier. We made the

best decisions we could with the information we had. This is something new for us.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you testified under oath that people should

air out their windows, but let me take you back to a year earlier

in July where we now, as a result of papers obtained by this subcommittee, learned of a memorandum that you, yourself, wrote to

Secretary Chertoff concerning the status of current litigation. I am

going to quote from that memorandum. ‘‘FEMA’s overall level of exposure for damages is low. Individual plaintiffs, in order to succeed,

bear the burden of proof and must establish specific harm and

damages. Based on the limited information known so far, this is

likely to be a very high threshold for them to meet.’’

It is true that the burden is on whoever sues, but who advised

you that the threshold would be difficult to meet a year before this

matter came to the light of the Congress or the press?

Mr. PAULISON. Congresswoman, I really don’t recall. That is an

honest answer. I don’t recall who gave me that advice.

239

Ms. NORTON. Well, we have a document that says that, 1 month

prior to this memorandum, that a FEMA employee had stated that

your own General Counsel—here I am quoting again from your

own internal documents—‘‘General Counsel has not wanted FEMA

to test to determine if formaldehyde levels are, in fact, unsafe.’’

Of course, there has been other evidence produced in this hearing that indicates that FEMA intentionally did not test trailers in

order to avoid liability. How do you respond?

Mr. PAULISON. That is not accurate. That is not my philosophy

at all. We were making what we thought were good decisions at the

time. We recognize now that we are going to go test it in real, live

conditions with——

Ms. NORTON. Let me just say——

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. With people living in those trailers.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, just let me advise you, you need to

get other, better lawyers. Let me advise you, as a lawyer, you have

increased your liability. You are always in a tough situation when,

in fact, you may be sued. I am not sitting here to say you must

incriminate yourself. What I am saying is that you must mitigate

your liability and you must make sure that you are not indicating

that there is no liability and you don’t need to do anything.

Now, I believe that you have increased your liability because I

believe plaintiffs may be able to show you knew or should have

known, and therefore to have purposefully not mitigated the situation for them may have put you in more hot water than you would

otherwise have been. You need very good lawyers when you face

this situation; instead, you had people who were acting stupidly defensively. You must defend yourself. No one said the Government

must come forward and say whatever you say is the case. The burden is on whoever sues. But, particularly for a public official, the

burden is on you to show that, when you knew or should have

known, you mitigated the problem by testing or doing whatever you

had to do. You can test, as you know, under the law, without that

being held against you. When you begin to mitigate, the plaintiff

cannot say therefore you must be guilty.

You have testified here that the answer—and I am paraphrasing—is really to get rid of these trailers. Mr. Paulison, we had a

hearing on getting rid of these trailers and we tried to do it the

right way. We called before us and you at the same time the dealers, and we learned at that time that if you dump trailers, particularly since most of these dealers are in small towns where that is

the only industry, you have so many trailers. Yet, you testified here

today I think that you had 20,000 trailers still. If this is a question

of old trailers, I have to ask you: what are you doing to offload the

trailers, to not have a situation like we had in Oklahoma where we

couldn’t get trailers, even though they needed them from you, and

to reduce this inventory of trailers so that we are not faced with

people living in formaldehyde-ridden trailers? When are we going

to offload these trailers without dumping? What progress have you

made in doing that?

Mr. PAULISON. The comments that I made here were not related

to getting rid of trailers, but moving people out of the trailers.

When I said we are getting——

Ms. NORTON. Into brand new trailers?

240

Mr. PAULISON. Pardon?

Ms. NORTON. Into brand new trailers?

Mr. PAULISON. Moving people out of trailers into apartments.

That is what I meant when I was talking about here about moving

people out, about getting rid of the trailers, getting them out of the

trailers——

Ms. NORTON. When are you going to get rid of the inventory of

trailers which we now know some of which may have formaldehyde

in them?

Mr. PAULISON. All travel trailers have formaldehyde in them.

You know, we are excessing them through GSA. Some of the residents who have those trailers, 20,000-some have asked us if they

can have those trailers. It is obvious that we are going to have to

at least post something in those trailers to let them know up front

that there is potential for formaldehyde.

Again, we are learning a lot, and your questions are right on target. We are learning a lot about travel trailers and mobile homes,

that they are not designed to stay in for the amount of time that

people are in these things. They are meant to go camping in. But,

again, when FEMA made the decision to start using these, that is

the only tool they had in their toolbox to get people housed in a

very quick manner, and it seemed reasonable at the time. And it

works very well when you back it up in somebody’s driveway where

they are rebuilding a house. It does not work well with the group

sites. They should be mobile homes or something else.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Mr. PAULISON. And I know I am taking too much time, but I

think this is important. I am sorry, Mr. Chair. We are working

with HUD to find a better way to house people after a disaster, and

it is not continuously to put them in travel trailers.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a lot of talk about the lawyers and whether lawyers did

the right thing or did the wrong thing. I am a lawyer, too. I guess

all the lawyers are left here on the committee. There is a period

before the lawyers get into something which is an opportunity to

fix it, which just has to do with the way an agency or anybody reacts to a situation, to some kind of notice that there is a problem.

If you move with some kind of reasonable speed to address the

issue, you can preempt things from going to the next stage.

The way this seemed to work is you missed the initial response

opportunity, then you got into the stage where the lawyers’ advice

maybe became an influence over the Agency’s action, and then, of

course, the last stage is always hearings in front of Congress,

which you could have preempted if you had done the first response

properly.

I am still, like I think everybody on the committee, trying to get

my head around how little testing has been done relative to the

complaints and the information that seemed to come forward. I

know you have probably been asked this question about a dozen

times and answered it, but if you could just do it for me: why did

the Agency not conduct more testing in response to the complaints

that were coming forward?

241

Mr. PAULISON. First of all, we do have a time line of everything

we have done from the first time we recognized we had an issue

with one trailer, which was in March 2006, and what we have done

almost every month since then trying to find out how big the program is and what we are doing, so I can give this to you also.

We did test trailers. We tested what we thought was the right

thing to do, considering we had a very, very small amount of complaints. That was taking trailers that were brand new that had

been locked up in the sun, testing for formaldehyde—and yes, they

did have formaldehyde—and what happens when you aired them

out, as we were advised to do by the formaldehyde and disease control experts. Did it reduce the formaldehyde down to a lower level,

and the answer was yes, it did.

That was very quickly. We sent out a notice on——

Mr. SARBANES. Let me jump in and ask this question.

Mr. PAULISON. We sent out notices to all the residents that, very

quickly, it was in July, which is just a few months after we had

the first test. We sent a notice to every resident in those travel

trailers that there was potential formaldehyde, and here is how you

mitigate it. At that time, we thought that was all we needed to do

to resolve this issue.

You know, now we are going to go back and do some very significant testing. Sierra Club did some basic testing. We are going to

expand that far beyond what they did. The doctor that spoke here

earlier, those symptoms he was seeing, we have had CDC talk to

him to get information from him. We are taking all this information to make some good, solid decisions.

Mr. SARBANES. The science that we got earlier on the earlier

panel suggested that the point at which you can smell the formaldehyde represents a level of elevation well beyond what is acceptable, with the statements being that there is going to be a whole

set of exposures below that level where you can actually smell it

that are also harmful. So would you agree that the fact that you

had what you are referring to as a relatively small number of complaints isn’t necessarily relevant to how significant the problem

could be? Would you agree with that?

Mr. PAULISON. What I said in my testimony was that, regardless

of whether we had two complaints or two hundred complaints,

which is what we have right now—200 out of 120,000—it doesn’t

matter. We are going to move on with some very significant testing. So just because we had a few doesn’t mean we are not going

to—at that time we didn’t think we had a big problem. We really

didn’t. We thought the off-gassing, ventilating—that was the advice

that we were getting at the time.

Again, I know you weren’t here earlier, but in hindsight could we

have made different decisions with what we know now? Yes, the

answer is of course yes. But at the time we thought we were making the right decisions that protected the residents and didn’t cause

an upheaval and upsetting people’s lives again by trying to move

them somewhere else. And I don’t know where we would have

moved them to begin with.

Mr. SARBANES. What was the administrative decision not to test?

I understand we talked about sort of the influence of the lawyers

242

on decisions not to test, but who decided early on that testing was

not needed?

Mr. PAULISON. We are not experts in formaldehyde. I mean, this

is something brand new for us. We thought that by off-gassing, by

the advice we were getting to ventilate the travel trailers, and

what we saw with the new travel trailers, that was a good decision

and that would take care of the formaldehyde problem. In fact,

after that the complaints did drop off a little bit. However, recognizing that is not going to work in the middle of July and summer in the Gulf Coast, that we have to do something different, and

we are not going to be able to reduce those levels of formaldehyde,

if it is even formaldehyde that is causing the problem. We are just

assuming that it is.

I have asked CDC to test for airborne bacteria. I have asked

them to test for mold. I have asked them to test for mildew, along

with the formaldehyde, to find out exactly what is causing the respiratory problems. Is it the trailer? Is it a certain manufacturer?

Is it a certain style? Is it a certain part? You know, we don’t have

those answers yet, but I can have those in very short time, and

that is what we are going to do to get some good, solid answers for

these people living in these things.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I guess all the answers that we are going to get are answers that the Agency could

have gotten earlier using just a minimum amount of diligence in

my view. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Jindal.

Mr. JINDAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the chief. I have several points I want to share, Chief.

If we do another round of questions I will give you time to expound

on some of these things, but I have several things I want to share.

I hope my colleagues understand why, for some of us in the Gulf

Coast, for some in Louisiana, it is sometimes scary to hear somebody say they are from FEMA and here to help. I don’t say that

as a personal attack. I want to share with you my frustration.

You know, we started off. You talk about addressing these three

cases. I am glad Mr. Stewart actually communicated with me he

has pictures of the trailer that was brought. You have the testimony of the 15. He has actually got pictures to share. I want you

to know those weren’t isolated cases. My office took phone calls

from constituents I described in the last round of testimony where

they couldn’t get help. They were told they needed medical documentation. They were told the medical symptoms weren’t true.

They were actually told by FEMA officials that this wasn’t happening, what they knew was happening to them and to their families.

I won’t repeat some of the heart-breaking cases. I will mention

one. We had a constituent who literally only had one lung, decided

it was safer to move back into a moldy residence than to stay in

a FEMA-provided trailer, wasn’t offered an alternative, because of

the formaldehyde.

I do want to make five other points.

CBS News actually did a report that they found an internal document where FEMA was warning their inspectors about the potential cancer risk by being exposed to fumes, to formaldehyde fumes.

243

These are for the inspectors. What about the people that have to

live there day in, day out? What about the people whose kids have

to sleep in those trailers?

The third thing I want to share our frustration with is back in

August 2006 FEMA indicated that they were going to do some testing. They were going to partner with EPA and the CDC. They told

the committee this. But we find in the e-mails and documents that

were given to this committee in July, in this month, that the actual

testing didn’t happen until after the lawsuits were filed. It just appears from the e-mails that it was more of a concern with the publicity with the lawsuits, rather than the health and the well-being

of the people being housed in those trailers.

The fourth thing I want to share with you in terms of frustration, you know, we heard in the previous panel and you have said

it, it is obviously better to get people out of trailers into permanent

housing. That would be, obviously, the best solution.

Louisiana applied for alternative housing pilot program project. This Congress gave $400 million in June 2006 for the so-called

Katrina cottages. In December 2006 the Department announced

the grant recipients in Louisiana and Mississippi. You approved

the Mississippi funding in April. As of July, 200 days since you selected the awards, you still haven’t approved funding for Louisiana’s permanent housing project. So I agree with you, permanent

housing is certainly preferable. Here is something that can be done

right away to at least begin helping hundreds of families.

My fifth point is that—and this has been mentioned by the chairman and others—when you look at the testing, a contractor working with the CDC said that the way the test protocols used by

FEMA to test these trailers, doing them after they were completely

ventilated, really appeared to be skewed to yield atypical results.

I am glad to hear that you are now open to doing the testing of

the trailers in the way they are actually used. I wish that had happened months ago. But we have heard that the testing actually appeared to have been designed to allow the best test results to be

achieved.

That really brings me to my last point, because I do not want to

just show my frustration but I also want to point where do we go

from here, and there are three things certainly I would like the

Agency to do. Certainly I am glad to hear that you are committed

to doing more systematic testing to determine how large of a problem is this, how many people are potentially impacted.

Second, I would hope that for anybody at risk, anybody living in

one of these trailers that continues to have some risk to their

health, an alternative housing arrangement would be arranged,

whether it is permanent housing, whether, as you mentioned,

apartments, whether it is a more suitable trailer.

Third, the people that have been exposed, I hope they will be

provided with the appropriate medical monitoring and medical

services. We are talking about a carcinogen. In addition to the

cases that have been mentioned, with the chairman’s permission I

want to submit for the record some news reports. In Baton Rouge

there was a case of a woman who has died from cancer. They

haven’t determined conclusively that it was due to the formaldehyde, but she had actually sued. She had started a lawsuit thinkVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Mar 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\40851.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
244

ing she had been exposed to formaldehyde. She has now died from

cancer.

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to submit those

news reports for the record.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, we will receive them for

the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bobby Jindal follows:]

245

246

247

Mr. JINDAL. And I do suspect my time is running out, but I hope

you understand the level of our frustration. You may have heard

me say in the earlier panel that it is almost like there were three

disasters. There was the storm, there was the failure of the levees,

and now there has been the Government incompetence.

Again, my point is not to yell at you, but my point is to say we

have to fix this, not only for Mr. Stewart and the other two witnesses, but for all those families. Let’s give them better housing.

Let’s give them the health care they need to make sure we don’t

have anybody else suffering unnecessarily from asthma, from cancer, from respiratory illnesses. Let’s at least make sure, going forward, that we are not subjecting these people to these fumes after

they have already been through so much.

Mr. PAULISON. Congressman, thank you. I appreciate your comments. I meant what I said earlier. I appreciate your leadership

down there, and I do want to work with your office. If you are getting complaints that FEMA is not providing that customer service

that I want down there, I would surely appreciate your sharing

those with me personally so I can deal. These three I am going to

deal with. It sounds to me like, according to what you are saying,

there may be others, and I want to get on top of those and deal

with them.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes himself for a second round.

Mr. Paulison, I am pleased you want to respond when you get

a complaint from a Congressman. I am pleased you want to respond to the witnesses today who came before the Congress. But

I think you have to respond to the American people why we are in

the situation we are in. For those who are listening to this hearing

or watching it, they think Government bureaucracy can’t do anything right.

I come from Los Angeles, and FEMA acted so well, so professionally when we had our earthquake. FEMA became a laughingstock when your predecessor, Michael Brown, was the head of it

and Katrina hit, because there was no competence in dealing with

that terrible tragedy. But you are now the head of FEMA. You

were confirmed by the Senate in April 2006. The problems with

these FEMA trailers occurred around March 2006, when we first

started hearing about it. So this is all on your watch.

On May 16, 2007, CBS aired an interview in which you stated

you did not know that FEMA trailers were causing occupants to

get sick. We have a clip. I want to run that clip for you of this

interview.

[Video shown.]

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Paulison, we have reviewed nearly

5,000 pages of FEMA documents, and they are full of alarms about

the level of formaldehyde in these FEMA trailers, and the staff,

your staff, said there was an immediate need to take action. There

was an independent testing done by the Sierra Club, and they

found over 80 percent of the trailers had dangerous levels of formaldehyde. That was a year ago.

It is hard for me to believe that you could not know as of May

this year that there were no serious problems or that there were

248

serious problems for families living in these trailers. It appears to

me that FEMA deliberately did not want to know.

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir——

Chairman WAXMAN. Am I wrong?

Mr. PAULISON. That is not accurate at all, sir. First of all, the

reporter ambushed me coming out of one of these hearings, and

what he was talking about was the pediatrician that spoke here

earlier and the children that he was seeing with more respiratory

illnesses. Even with our doctors talking to him directly, what he

told our doctors from Homeland Security, that if it was formaldehyde or was it bacteria in the air or was it mold or mildew, he was

just seeing more respiratory problems. That is the answer I gave

to the reporter. I don’t know what is causing it. I am not a medical

doctor. That is what I was trying to get across.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. Well, I just think that the public was

appalled by the incompetence of FEMA after Hurricane Katrina,

but when I look at your record regarding formaldehyde in FEMA

trailers I see the same indifference, lack of concern, and incompetence.

I want to raise another issue with you. We have another clip.

This was on May 15, 2007. You testified before the Committee on

Homeland Security. Could we run that clip?

[Video shown.]

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, your statement was not based on an

ambush. You were testifying, and your testimony was you weren’t

sure that formaldehyde does present a health hazard, and you

turned to EPA and others. And, according to the documents, EPA

told FEMA ‘‘the levels we find after testing may well be more than

100 times higher than the health base level.’’

You didn’t do the testing, but after EPA told your staff that testing under real-world conditions would expose problems you

changed the protocol. FEMA decided to test with the windows

open, fans running, under unrealistic conditions. I can’t understand

why you changed the testing protocol about what was really happening to people. Can you give us an explanation of that?

Mr. PAULISON. That test was done to see if we could reduce the

level of formaldehyde in the trailers by opening them up and ventilating them out. It went along with the original test where we

tested new trailers closed up in the sun. Yes, they had a lot of

formaldehyde. Could we do another test with the advice we were

given to ventilate the trailers and open them up and let them air

out and off-gas the formaldehyde. That, sir, was not a test to say

yes, we don’t have formaldehyde. We knew we had formaldehyde.

They said could we do that, and based on that test we advised the

residents, we sent notices out to all of the residents to air their

trailers out if they are sensitive to formaldehyde, if it is causing

a problem, open the windows, air it out, and off-gas that formaldehyde out of the trailer.

Again, Congressman, I do appreciate this hearing. It is the right

thing to do. I think we ought to come up with some good answers

at the end of the day. We made the best decisions we could at the

time. In retrospect? There is no question in retrospect we could

have done things differently had we had the information we have

now.

249

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, I guess I am questioning whether you

did make the best decisions with the——

Mr. PAULISON. I understand that.

Chairman WAXMAN [continuing]. With the information you had,

because it seems to me you had red flags all over the place. But,

despite that, on May 17, 2006, the FEMA national spokesman

made the following statement: ‘‘FEMA and industry experts have

evaluated the small number of cases where odors of formaldehyde

have been reported, and we are confident that there is no ongoing

risk.’’ Why was FEMA confident that there was no risk? How could

FEMA make a statement like that in May 2006 when you were

hearing all these reports about people getting sick?

Mr. PAULISON. Again, I don’t know when this statement was

made as far as——

Chairman WAXMAN. It was made in May 2006.

Mr. PAULISON. Again, I don’t know what the relationship to that

statement was, and I suspect it might have been made to the fact

that we felt—again, I am surmising now—we might have felt that

by ventilating the trailers and off-gassing the formaldehyde that

there was no risk to the trailers. I don’t want to second guess what

somebody was saying or why they said it.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, that somebody worked for you.

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, I understand.

Chairman WAXMAN. And spoke on behalf of your Agency.

Mr. PAULISON. I understand.

Chairman WAXMAN. Where does the responsibility for running

your agency stop?

Mr. PAULISON. It stops with me, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK.

I want to recognize any other Members who want a second round

of questions.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, I have two questions I really must

get in. One really goes to the good faith of the Agency, even after

your testimony today.

I want to ask you to look at this exhibit. We have an exhibit from

August, 2006, with a pamphlet on page 377 and 378 which was distributed to occupants of these trailers. We have combed this exhibit, exhibit U. We cannot find a telephone number for people to

call.

Then there is another exhibit that the committee obtained, exhibit T. This is e-mail from two FEMA employees, and this is the

quotation going to the good faith of what you have said here today,

sir. I think you need to indicate how this happened. This is a question, a good faith question from an employee. ‘‘I don’t see a number

on it. Are you all going to put your numbers on it? We here in

MS—’’ I guess that is Mississippi—‘‘would put our call number on

it. Or is the intent not to?’’

In response another FEMA employee says this in return. ‘‘Hi,

Sid. We are trying to not generate a lot of calls, just get the facts

out.’’

You must explain, Mr. Paulison. I understand in earlier questions you talked about how people should be in touch with the companies. This is a FEMA document. How could you possibly have

250

put out a document on trailers and apparently deliberately not give

a contact number?

Mr. PAULISON. Because the contact that they were supposed to

make is with their maintenance group, and that number is posted

inside the trailer.

Ms. NORTON. But why did not the document say——

Mr. PAULISON. They should have. But the——

Ms. NORTON. So there was no number of any kind on the document, just the fact that you may be in danger.

Mr. PAULISON. The residents are told. They are given clear instructions for documentation if there is any problem with the—we

have 27 different maintenance units across the Gulf Coast. If there

is any problems with that trailer, that is what they are supposed

to call.

By printing the program office number on there, it would just

confuse things. We couldn’t do different documents for every——

Ms. NORTON. You know what? You know what? Your employees

didn’t think so. They thought they should be a point of contact for

you. You essentially were off-loading, out-sourcing the rest of the

deal. Look, you got problems, it is between you and the contractor.

But where did you get the trailer from? You got it from FEMA, and

FEMA off-loads responsibility altogether. They could have gotten a

thousand different responses from trailer companies.

The notion that you would out-source that responsibility after

you, yourself, were responsible for getting the trailer for the resident creates a question of your good faith, particularly given what

these employees were told.

So I have to ask you, is there going to be a telephone number

in FEMA that people can call with respect to problems with the

trailers?

Mr. PAULISON. The best place for them to deal with anything

wrong with their trailer, including formaldehyde, is the maintenance contractors assigned to that particular service park. They

are trained and know what the answers are.

Ms. NORTON. You hear it now, Mr. Chairman. The trailer comes

from FEMA. The trailer comes directly from FEMA, not from the

contractor, not from the dealer.

Mr. PAULISON. But they are the ones who we hired to take care

of the maintenance of that trailer.

Ms. NORTON. And so you are going to leave it to people of every

level, every educational level, no background in trailers, to negotiate their way out of the problem? Who is going to pay for it? Who

is going to pay for it, Mr. Paulison? Who is in charge of paying for

it if there is a problem with formaldehyde or anything else in the

trailer?

Mr. PAULISON. We are.

Ms. NORTON. I think that is the answer to the question, Mr.

Paulison. If, in fact, you are the vendor, you have to pay for it. You

cannot tell me that the tenant has to therefore negotiate the deal

with the trailer company.

Mr. PAULISON. There is no negotiation. That is the opening, the

portal into the maintenance for the trailer.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, I have to ask you, are you willing

now to give a FEMA number for people to call?

251

Mr. PAULISON. That is our FEMA number. If we start confusing

the residents with different numbers——

Ms. NORTON. Are you willing to give a FEMA number if a resident in a trailer has a problem with the trailer that resident got

from you? Yes or no? Are you willing to do that, sir?

Mr. PAULISON. We have a number. We put it inside the trailer

for them to have right there at their hands. I don’t know what else

to tell you.

Ms. NORTON. You are not willing to give a FEMA number?

Mr. PAULISON. They have a FEMA——

Ms. NORTON. If the tenant has a——

Mr. PAULISON. That is a FEMA number. That is who they go to

for——

Ms. NORTON. Are you telling me that this is not still the case

that he said we don’t want to give the number out? Now you do

give a FEMA number out? What is that number, please?

Mr. PAULISON. That number is different for every park, because

we have 27 different maintenance——

Ms. NORTON. Is there a FEMA? Mr. Paulison, why can’t I get an

answer. Is there a FEMA number?

Mr. PAULISON. There is a FEMA number. That is the number

that FEMA uses for the occupants’ access the maintenance for that

trailer.

Ms. NORTON. You are telling me that your position still is that,

although you contracted for the trailer, the FEMA number is the

number of the trailer company, itself? Is that your answer?

Mr. PAULISON. No, it is not the trailer company. We hire——

Ms. NORTON. It is who?

Mr. PAULISON. We hire maintenance contractors to maintain

those trailers. They make regular visits to the trailer parks to the

trailers to——

Ms. NORTON. And the vendors deal directly with the——

Mr. PAULISON. If there is any problem with that trailer, they go

to them. We pay those contractors. They are basically our employees. I mean, that is who we use. We train them. We give them instructions to——

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry that none of the people are here so we

can find out if the system works.

I understand you are going to have another hearing on ice. We

have had a hearing on food where millions of dollars in food were

wasted and other food had to be given away. Now, Mr. Chairman,

just recently it was exposed to one of the members of our subcommittee who had a press conference on this yesterday because

his area, Memphis, is where some of this ice was located, 22 locations where you stored ice. We are told, common knowledge, ice has

a 1-year shelf life. Why did you not get rid of this ice within 1 year,

Mr. Paulison?

Mr. PAULISON. The ice that we had has been tested——

Ms. NORTON. It is $12.5 million in storage costs to the United

States.

Mr. PAULISON. The ice is a commodity that has an expiration

date. We kept it as long as we could, and we made the decision to

get rid of it, and the only way to get rid of it is to let it melt.

252

Ms. NORTON. My question is, Katrina has been over for a long

time. So has the following year when there might have been hurricanes. If you had gotten rid of the ice earlier, there would have

been a mitigation cost to the taxpayer; is that not true?

Mr. PAULISON. If we had gotten rid of it earlier, but we still felt

the ice had life expectancy. We kept it as long as we could, and

then we made a decision to get rid of it. We are not going to store

ice any more. We have made a decision now to use outside contractors. It is not a life-saving commodity. We don’t need it today. You

can wait until tomorrow to get it. Food and water is a lifesaving

commodity. We will still store those things, but the ice we will not.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Mr. Sarbanes, do you wish a second round?

Mr. SARBANES. Real briefly, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to ask

any more questions about why you did or didn’t do the things you

did or didn’t do, because the answers are so implausible to me, but

I think I have figured out maybe what was going on. The behavior

of the Agency was irrational if the Agency was one that wanted to

know what was going on. In other words, you can’t square what

you did with a desire to get to the bottom of the issue. It is irrational behavior. And human beings are fundamentally, when they

have possession of all their faculties, human beings act in a rational way, so I am trying to figure out what would make the behavior

rational.

The only thing that makes the behavior of the Agency and its

leadership rational would be if you didn’t want to know and you

didn’t want to take responsibility. That would explain why you

wouldn’t do testing that was obviously called for. That would explain why, when you did do the testing, you would do it under

these highly contrived conditions in order to try to get to a result

that would be favorable. That would explain why, when you did the

testing, you did it on trailers that were not occupied, because if you

found a bad result you could then, in a very legalistic way, distinguish it from those who were occupying the trailers because you

could say, well, the fact that these trailers that are unoccupied

have dangerous levels doesn’t mean that the trailers that are occupied have dangerous levels.

So every step of the way it was calculated to not know or not

take responsibility. I have reached that conclusion because you

strike me as a rational person, and the only way to explain your

behavior in a rational way is to conclude that you didn’t want to

know and you didn’t want to take responsibility.

No further question.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few final questions, if I am one of the last people to ask.

I want to make sure this problem doesn’t spread. I mean, you certainly hear the combination of frustration, exasperation, and disbelief from members of this panel, but I want to talk about where

these trailers are moving from here.

I understand that a lot of these trailers, as people no longer need

them in the Gulf region, are moving to other places. I want to ask

the simple question what procedures you are putting in place to

make sure that none of the trailers that have any formaldehyde

253

contamination or have any reasonable belief of formaldehyde contamination are reaching other parts of this country and other buyers who are looking for those trailers.

Mr. PAULISON. We are selling the trailers. We are excessing

through GSA. Based on what we know now, what we are going to

have to do is make sure those buyers understand that these are

meant for camping, not for long-term living; that they do have

formaldehyde in them, and here is assistance for that. So we are

going to have to do that with every trailer we sell as we get rid

of them. Other than that, we will just take them and crush them

and put them in a dumpster somewhere, and I don’t think that is

fiscally responsible, considering that every travel trailer is built basically the same. People either buy them from a travel agency or

buy them used from us. In fact, the used ones would have less

formaldehyde than a brand new one.

So we do excess them through GSA to get rid of them. We have

had, I think, over 20,000 people who have those travel trailers now

want to keep them once they have moved out of them. I don’t know

what we are going to do with that yet, but they have sent us notification. They have asked for those, but they want to keep them for

camping trailers, not to live in, obviously.

Mr. MURPHY. And I don’t know what the answer to this is. I

don’t know when you cut your losses here. I understand the need

to always be mindful of fiscal responsibility, but to the extent there

is any level of formaldehyde that even in the short term or the long

term, because this is probably not going to be the last owner of the

trailers, they are going to be transferred again and again and

again, and to somehow rely on the fact that information is going

to be disclosed as they get transferred seems like a pretty dangerous policy when we have our hands on them right now.

I mean, just as a for instance, Mr. Paulison, this committee I

know contacted the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department where

some of these trailers are transferred to. They tested them once

they got them and found levels of formaldehyde above the 0.1 parts

per million. So we already know people have them that have tested

them, themselves, and found levels that they consider to be excessively high.

I would just ask you to really reconsider that point as to whether

disclosure is going to be the best policy going forward. We may

have to cut our losses here on trailers that have been contaminated

and known to have harmed people already.

Mr. PAULISON. Again, as we learn more and more about these

things, that is definitely a public policy discussion we have to have

with what we are going to do with them. I think your comments

are right on target.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Paulison, as I said to you before we even started this hearing, our job is to find out what happened and make sure it doesn’t

happen again. We are trying to be constructive, but I think we all

have to be responsible. Our job is to do responsible oversight, and

I hope you will look to see whether your Agency has handled all

of this in a responsible manner.

Thank you very much for being here.

254

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, sir. Again, I meant what I said earlier. I appreciate what you do in the hearing. I think a lot of good

things are going to come out of it at the end of the day.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you. That concludes our business at

this hearing. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ