ranking member is on his way but has asked that i start so i am pleased to open this hearing and to welcome our witnesses to another in a series of hearings as subcommittee is holding to oversee and evaluate the efforts of the federal emergency management agency of sima as well as the affected state and local governments to proceed more rapidly with their work on the long before year recovery from hurricane katrina and rita today we will see here specifically how the new arbitration program mandated in the american recovery reinvestment act as well as hear about how that program operates as well as about other steps that the new leadership team and the department of homeland security are taking to improve the pace and the quality of the recovery efforts efforts in the gulf coast a hearing earlier this year we were astonished to uncover almost three point five billion dollars caught in a stalemate between thema and the state of louisiana from which neither could extricate themselves based on today's testimony as well as numerous meetings and discussions that members and staff have had with officials at all levels of government in the gulf coast it appears that progress may have begun since president obama secretary  proposed by the subcommittee for two and a half years are just now coming online during the last administration thema resisted efforts to break the logjam for foreign its own traditional devices seeing little progress two years ago this committee reported h r three to four seven was the house passed and in october two thousand and seven encouraging the use of third parties to review an expedited public assistance appeal as well as simplified procedures under which small projects would be permitted to proceed on estimates for projects up to one hundred thousand dollars we passed this bill which also raise the federal contribution to certain projects from seventy five percent to ninety percent not once but twice as well as a similar bill and september two thousand and eight it is unfortunate that the senate was never able to pass this legislation for that matter the femur did not take from this legislation what needed to be done after the house had spoken however even if the h r three to four the past female leadership never face the structural impediments that obstructed agreements for the unprecedented gulf coast this asters given the huge funding amount analysis to require state responsibility in the state of louisiana to insist on more fans and urge there or slants ability in light of the state's devastation neither side has had much incentive or leadership to negotiate with any efficiency or goals except for its own cage views considering the unprecedented challenge enormous amounts of money and complexity it should've been clear that without deadlines the state and fema would continue to engage in negotiations at will for as long as they desired now all involved have exhausted the available alternatives and are left with a record of unnecessarily the laid recovery in louisiana the residents of that state are suffering through the greatest economic crisis most have experienced an add on crisis because of the so called gr recession well billions of dollars have been left on the proverbial table for years waiting to be spent on construction of the new charity hospital and other vital infrastructure the accumulated hardship on the sierra residents demands immediate attention it is hard to overestimate the hardship that has accumulated only mandated third party intervention or negotiations on a timeline are left as acceptable as a result of the new arbitration program authorized by the congress in the recovery a has entered into an agreement with the civilian board of contract appeals of the c b c a a part of the general services administration which also comes under this subcommittee its jurisdiction the c expertise in resolving disputes in their own construction contracts should prove em valuable if for used with determine leadership and without delay it is unfortunate indeed that new legislative language has been necessary to get action particularly since it has been clear to the subcommittee there thema had sufficient existing resolution into law even today while the arbitration provision of the recovery act is mandated for projects acceding five hundred thousand dollars nothing prohibits crema from offering arbitration for smaller projects nor does legislation prevents thema from using other types of alternative dispute resid resolution if  timely results are not produced resistance to using time limited alternatives resolution on gulf coast recovery will not be tolerated by this subcommittee for  example should simplified procedures permitting small projects from fifty five thousand to one hundred thousand dollars or a possibly higher figure be permitted to proceed based on estimates during this great recession as it has been called as the usual state match for infrastructure construction been affected by congressional failure to pass the provision of h r three to four seven they would have raised the federal match from seventy five percent to ninety percent again we thank our fema representatives witnesses from the civilian board of contract appeals and witnesses from louisiana for preparing testimony today to help the subcommittee better understand how to ensure that the recovery efforts in the gulf coast continue to improve i'm very pleased to hurricane katrina and rita as a chairman those represent from a state that has unfortunately experienced a number of hurricanes and storms i've experienced working with family and seen some great success and also obviously some some of the ladies that  may occur in receiving assistance and we all know that addressing the delays public assistance funding is critical in the recovery process following a major disaster like a hurricane fortunately the have plagued the recovery process n and also in other states frankly that were impacted by katrina and rita it's been the four years since hurricane katrina hit the gulf coast and devastated parts of louisiana and texas alabama and mississippi since that time congress has taken a number of important steps to strengthen fema and to try to ensure that louisiana louisiana particular and other states impacted by that storm can recover so some steps have been taken unfortunately delays continue to persist and obviously a lot of work is still on done unfortunately so i want to recognize and he's on his way here i know that he was flying in now i want to recognize the efforts of congress and the cow the louisiana was worked tire y on this important issue is as well as others in this committee at his request the ranking member mr mike of florida posted to roundtables and involving members of congress fema state and local officials to discuss and find ways in which the process frankly can hopefully move around move along much quicker in response to the ongoing delays fema stablished of public assistance projects decision team to work through many of those projects in louisiana and to work with louisiana on those projects so to date seven point eight billion dollars has been has been obligated for public assistance projects in louisiana with over one point two billion dollars provided since february this year alone and a new arbitration process has been established pursuant to language included in the recovery act it's something that the chairwoman of the subcommittee has been a great leader in and has been pushing for the ability of fema and state and local officials to work through  you know issues like eligibility has clearly clearly improved and i think you're you're seeing that and i think we're all pleased that so while progress has been made there are still a number of outstanding projects that have yet to be resolved and some of them are  road and some of them are large some of them are smaller this obviously is not an issue that's only important to louisiana but all states particularly those that may see disasters and we're not hoping that we ever will that we know they'll become in the future disasters like katrina florida being one of those been any any state that's on the coast is subject to those the project by project process for public assistance funding may or may not provide the needed it the flexibility to actually recovery from a disaster that is that would be to the scale of something like katrina so i believe it's important for the subcommittee to examine this issue closely so that we can assure that fema has the proper tools to address similar disasters in the future we have put all the witnesses at the table and i wanted to try to get the needed interaction so we can understand and learn some things so i'm going to miss the  table as you indicated this mr charlie axton mr axton is day to day the director of the disaster assistance division and fema region ten he is currently detail to thema headquarters as the acting deputy assistant administrator for disaster assistance mr x in this one of our brightest and most forward thinking disaster assistance employees as a great mind for public assistance and is one of the reasons that mr x then was sent down to the gulf coast and to the state of louisiana to lead the unified public assistance decision team that congressman deals bill are just referred to that is one of the innovations that was announce by secretary in the politan oh a number of months ago along with the joint expedited review team and these are two innovations that fema in conjunction with our partners at the states have jointly initiated to help deal with disputes that exist within the public assistance arena and we've enjoyed some success in that regard as congressman de as billard indicated since we appeared before you in late february over two thousand one hundred seventeen project worksheets and revisions to project worksheets have been processed and obligated amounting to over one point two billion dollars that's quite an uptick in terms of the numbers and pace of public assistance approvals and we're proud of that success that said we are by no means at the point where we can say mission accomplished we recognize that there is still much to do and we will we intend to continue to work with our partners to make that happen i'm very happy that you asked the state of louisiana and a parish representative to appear at this table today not only do we need to hear from them but it helps reinforce what we believe is very important and that that is that teamwork is what moves us forward and able to us to make progress since tony russell was appointed the director of the transitional recovery office we've seen a remarkable turnaround in our partnership with the state and with the local parish representatives we've made it a great deal of progress in restoring and reforging that relationship and we're very proud of the partnership that we now have with  with our with our car leagues and partners from from the state and again i'd like to personally thank the leadership of mr paul rainwater and the gentleman sitting behind him mr mark riley they have been excellent partners with us in helping improve  how we do business in the state of louisiana and again helping us improve the pace of obligations at the end of the table mr craig to pharo from the st bernard parish he's also been an excellent partner we continuing to work with  mr to fargo and his parish and the other parishes to further empower and improve how we do business with those parishes become more customer focused again though we're we're not at the point where we can say mission accomplished with with any of the parishes we have made a considerable amount of progress and we respect and appreciate the partnership we with the state have been able to forge with with our parish leaders and so thank you for having us all here we look forward to give me broad oversight for more than twenty billion dollars worth of federal recovery funds including more than eight point five billion in public assistance funding obligated to the state of louisiana currently reimbursed more than five billion dollars to recovering communities and it takes our staff somewhere between five to ten days to pay that requests for reimbursement the applicants part of the expect express pay process that we started back in two thousand and eight to speed up the recovery and we've made a lot of progress since february there's just no there's no doubt about it we've seen an increase the amount of funds obligated for projects including several high profile projects that often were used example via the disagreements between fema in the state of louisiana but we were able to work through that and i want to give credit where credit is due since president  obama took office and under this new fema leadership team is obligated more than one billion dollars in additional funding to to louisiana projects and that credit goes to charlie x and tony russell and bill vogel who came down as part of the decision teams which was very creative process to get down and work with our staff and a gentleman sitting behind me mark riley who have literally just got it through you know hundreds of thousands of project work sheets several of those large projects that come to mind we actually used in testimony to you madam chairwoman include about sixty million dollars i recently got obligated to tulane university we fought for over three years over that over that project which basically the l weeks before to reconcile for katrina related repair work across the campus at tulane in august secretary napolitano and fame administrator craig fugate visited the campus of southern university in new orleans to announce an additional thirty two million dollars of recovery money for the campus and that in total it took four years a get to ninety two million dollars but i will tell you that the chance are you poco who was at the at that ceremony was amazingly happy and pleased about the future of this campus because it had been called into question because of the delays in coming up with the dollars and the arguments between state and fema and suno but tony russell and charlie x didn't sit down with us at a table we worked it out and that's the way it should be  there are additional issues those as we've stated there are we've still got about four thousand project work sheets that are in some process of being reversion to we have been talking to theme about how to make that process much more efficient in and we are committed to being partners with the federal emergency management agency to do that now only complaint that i have about fame is that we don't have more tony russell's and charlie actions and bill vocals to spread around the country in the reality of it is  tony and charlie are very busy with the because of the lingering disputes have been out there for quite some time work many long hours and obviously the more we can grow the pie the better in the easier will be to push that d those dollars through that pod and there are two board things that the state of louisiana needs from fema to speed up its recovery more experienced fema staff in a streamline version process now there are some things that seem a need from the state as well and you know we started our expect express pay program and we knew going for we needed to tweak it and we're committed to doing that we're adding an additional fifty five personnel to all the governor's office of homeland security and emergency preparedness to work that process to get more efficient with that process and to send more folks out in the field to work those project work sheets and work that reversion piece we're also providing ideas to fiume about how we can organize jointly and more in a more efficient manner and as i said in our first hearing we will continue to be partners in synchronize as efficiently as possible between local state and federal government to kind of take that veil down as best we possibly can obviously as you said matt madam chair one we all have our roles to play here but we want to do it in a way that's productive and constructive thank you the opportunity to be here we believe that we present a unique perspective having been involved in the aftermath of hurricane katrina from day one from the local level oftentimes the day to day struggles and challenges and obstacles that we face on the local level sometimes get lost in them the larger system of fema bureaucracy or the coordination between the federal and state levels we have enjoyed however the transition from being a council member at the local level and beginning at administrative post in january of two thousand and eight we committed to revamping the relationship between st bernard parish the state of louisiana and the fim office both at the local and the federal offices we believe that that was a major important step because what we saw  that the relationships that existed at the local level with the other agencies had fallen aside and the needs and concerns of those people representing the sixty eight thousand residents who lost their livelihoods and their properties as a result of katrina hurricane katrina were left basically and represented over the last twenty months we've made significant progress st bernard parish stands as the first or second ranked municipality in the gulf coast region in virtually every category of recovery so we believe we stand as a unique member of the recovery effort not so much because we have done this on our own but we have pushed to basically push the model that recovery can no longer wait as you know we were ground zero which meant that every business every church every school and single digit homes were were spared from the wrath of hurricane katrina what we have found over the last twenty months in particular that has worked most effectively we have to give credit to the press pay system that has released dollars to the local municipalities as we have pushed forward the recovery st bernard parish as as being as devastated as we were were left without a great deal of our tax revenue both in terms of sales tax and at the lorem support so we're in a position of either we had to wait and allow the system to catch up with us or to guide us where we had to take it  on as a as a mission of our own to push our recovery we were fortunate to have a bond issue at the local level and we have used that basically to substantiate and pay for the services of the vendors in our recovery unfortunately that well has run dry and we're faced with a situation that without changes to expedite the versioning process so that the projects that are identified as eligible and non controversial can move through the fema approval system much more readily making the state ready to disperse those funds to the to st bernard parish as well as other local municipalities to put it in perspective as we speak today we have twenty nine project work sheets pending those twenty nine project work sheets roughly equate to one hundred two hundred eight million dollars of work we have one hundred sixty six versions to project work sheets that are also pending and that number changes daily we change from one thirty one on friday to one sixty six as of yesterday those project work she version requests amount to another hundred fourteen million dollars based on our roll ups in our in to supported continued work we anticipate another three hundred to five hundred version requests being submitted in the near term which will account for nearly another two hundred twenty million dollars so just in saint bernard which by the way the magnitude of our destruction and devastation we constitute a major disaster in and of itself for just the parish of st bernard so we're looking at nearly four hundred forty million dollars of remaining recovery money now keep in mind that these figures only refer to permanent work and not debris work so what we're asking for is a continued partnership with fema increased manpower to provide the support for the people on the ground doing an absolutely wonderful job so that that money can be freed up in an expedited ma thank you very much madam chair members of the subcommittee as you've explained the civilian board of contract p l c is say client side traditional tribunal which is housed within the general services administration that functions and trialing independently of that agency the board currently consists of fifteen ministry of judges our principal mission is to resolve contract disputes between civilian agencies  the government and their contractors the members of the board and i are honored to take on the responsibility of arbitrating disputes regarding seem the public's assistance grants stemming from damage caused by hurricanes katrina and rita assignment constitutes an extension of our work in arbitrating disputes between government agencies and the entities with which they do business practice we understand the need for resolving the disputes fully and promptly so that the people of the gulf coast region can complete their recovery efforts and get back to the normal routines of their lives we've pledged to the secretary and we pledge to the congress to do our utmost to resolve these disputes in the same way we approach our contract case as fairly and at the same time as informally expeditiously and inexpensively as possible on october third eye on august thirty first team a published in the federal register regulations which govern our arbitration of these disputes fema consulted with the board in draftin panel so the board as an alternative to the standard theme appeals process under famous regulations if an applicant's appeal was pending with thema on august thirty first or determination on or after prarie seventeenth two thousand and nine an applicant can elect the arbitration process no later than october third otherwise an applicant can elect this process within thirty calendar days after received the most determination collection is made by sending a request to the board's clerk along with supporting documentation let me take just a minute to outline  process under which will hear these cases when the clerk receives a request for arbitrate she will assign a docket number she will select one of her judges and rotational order to coordinate activities regarding the matter and two other judges of random to work with according co ordinating judge on the panel she will also inform the relevant state government that it may within fifteen calendar days submit comments on the merits of the application and at the same time she will inform thema that it shall within thirty calendar days cement its own comments along with supporting documentation within ten business days of receiving famous comments the coordinating judge will convene a telephone conference with the parties to address preliminary matters such as clarification of the issues and to schedule further proceedings and applicant can choose to have the panel decide the case on the basis of the written record or on the basis of that record plus an informal hearing if the applicant chooses a decision on the basis of the written record the panel will make every effort to issue its decision within sixty calendar days of the day in which we receive famous comments if the applicant chooses hearing the panel conduct such a proceeding without a court reporter it will look at all possible conduct the hearing within sixty calendar days of the date of the conference and it will make every effort to issue the decision within sixty calendar days of the end of the here decisions will be in writing but they will also be short they'll announce the results and explain its basis but will not contain expositions of legal reasoning sure the board hasn't yet received any requests for arbitration of fema determinations but i can assure you that when cases arrive we'll look forward to working with the parties to resolve the disputes as quickly and  fairly as we possibly can patience of the full committee as well as the subcommittee with the the word progress simply cannot be the written yet until we we're through with this hearing and i satisfied that prog progress but with the four year journey frustrating journey little or no process until recently frankly for the larger project not thin think the importance that being yesterday this being tomorrow than the presence of a full committee chairman who has dropped by despite being in one of the busiest periods of had not received adequate funding for the equipment they needed this was one of the great lessons of september eleventh a lesson further learned in katrina and just one of many so make sure that no others approach this cost whatever way that we can accomplish so i i look forward to continuing testimony of the panel thank you thank you very much  district in louisiana have you any opening remarks and thank you madam chair and thank you very much for holding this hearing i appreciate your continuing effort to be focus in the district that you  push the recovery process and i want to thank chairman oberstar for his willingness and openness to look at all the issues that we are facing down at the district and to somehow revise the staff and add to allow  state city as well as other agencies the flexibility to to better recover from katrina and also with the chairman's emphasis on the recovery process after after  very familiar with all the issues that you presented and i hope to question you a little bit later on some of the questions that i still have i think you know i'd like to express my  i do have to do confess to a particular interest my wife is from new orleans her family some of her family still lives there her extended family everybody already and i think is related some way which was affected in a way no one could imagine buildings where homes were overtopped with the floodwaters hold structures were floated away from their moorings and and one in particular stopped only when it ran into another house that didn't move and i remember talking to that homeowner saying what he had sued for collision damage i said why did you bring suit for collision damage he said well no one else was helping the corps wasn't doing anything fema wasn't doing anything and what else are we supposed to do six months on into this tragedy so we brought a lawsuit well that's the ultimate spare and should not happen and i will always be haunted by the signs that said hold the core accountable well not just guards fema and everyone else associated with this gentleman is doing is role our chair is doing her role we want to hear what lessons are learned and how we can prevent the mistakes from happening in the future the a b c s of the federal bureaucracy so maybe if i get to know what they are and what the difference among them is i will be i will i can rest  now let me go to mr mr x then since he's been the man on the ground maybe you can help me understand you know the last thing we are about are creating new layers in the over layer of federal government so when i see that there's a something and watch out for federal officials better than anything else they know how to name what they are doing up to people are doing it they have a name for it if a thousand people are doing it they have a name for it i pretty soon they'll have a name for it if only one person is doing it so the first thing i've got to understand is before i understand all these things which i hope are not layers the first thing i've got to understand is the difference tween something called the joint x expediting and the unified public assistance project decision  very good question and i think as when i first arrived down there at the end of february the beginning of march the first day i had a meeting with with mark riley and some of his team and and the original vision for the decision team was to review the final field level disputes and make decisions on them in a centrally a binary fashion and what i found very quickly is that the the efforts of the state and the efforts of sima whether it be expediting team or a project decision team that the real need back in those days was to just improve our ability to work together different players in the unified public assistance project yes yes what's the difference in the players the the the the decision team was a small group of people from fema which i was the leader of and a small group from the state states leadership the expediting team was i'm kind of a broader team that existed of fema officials that were working in the existing transitional recovery office with the existing partnerships they had with with their state counterparts and the theory was if those teams weren't able to resolve issues on the ground then they would have one final field level review by the decision team and how does it work does it work that way still there in the past seven or eight months since we've stood this effort by what we've concluded collectively really between the fim officials in the state officials is that overall we've done a lot to improve our partnership to improve our ability to work together to improve the timeliness of our decisions unified unity of effort setting goals together setting priorities together and so many of those efforts that we're seeing are becoming complimentary and have emerged again towards that common goal that that has been set by mr russell the fema director of the transitional recovery office and the senior state officials so we've seen an evolution of of all of those efforts in the past six to still zap or what is the purpose of having two teams one at a higher level sounds to me as though you know if one court doesn't do it let's have another court in between so i don't you know i'm all i'm trying to find out is one team how how long does that team have to play with the issue before some team who can make a decision gets the issue that's really what we're after mr axtell i understand and it's a it's a great question  chairwoman norton it really boils down to the complexity of the of the issue that faced and and some of the cases it was a single situation where a local official was proposing a mitigation which is investment that could be made to avoid future losses that was deemed an eligible and there was a very clear case that was made and we were able to rule on whether in fact could be deemed eligible other cases it was a series of buildings that had a whole series of of of of unknowns that were related to what were the damages what were the impacts what are the future design requirements and so it's really depended on the nature and i don't mean i don't mean at all or simplify what i understand to be a complex process all i know is what we've seen right that today they must and louisiana would still be at the table fiddling week with each other if the congress hadn't forced a new strategy on them or use were forced because it took statute to do what they already could do mr to pharaoh do you see the streamlined effect you are at the level of where where there would be the felt need madam chair we went where mr x and first arrived on the ground done a different role and the role was if we weren't b if we weren't able to resolve our issues with our local fema department at the t r o that mr action would step in and basically  resolve that conflict that that quickly changed but what you're hearing what you're hearing is the crux of the matter the stafford act makes projects eligible or ineligible the problem is that getting something from eligible to in eligible sometimes depends on who's looking at it and not based on some objective criteria and as you heard and chairman over starr thank you for your your visit to st bernard i remember when you came the the fact of the matter is when you deal with a community in the gulf coast region where we had nearly twenty feet of water across our entire parish three feet of gulf sludge there are very few things that would be ineligible to be repaired but yet we still after four years on the ground have to prove that there was damage created by such an event because once it's eligible there should be no more there should be no more obstacles it's eligible make the project worksheet fit the work that's required release the funds the states now can disperse those funds and it's a simple process matter if you're not oversimplifying it you're hitting it on the  heard these brain notions about it was it was already something was already in disrepair now quote how much of the disrepair was the storm responsible mind numbing because it is clear that neither mr daniels nor any other ad ministration law judge  unless they have word from on high could make that kind of separation that would take common sense notions that you could put on paper when you one i shouldn't put i shouldn't factor in the complexity that i know about and i do know about the complexity and i am among others on this panel the guardian of their own funds but i also know it is not beyond human intelligence to figure ways within certain parameters to help decision makers stray yes a or nay and i do not hear that those ways are have yet been then transcribed so that mr to borrow would know whether he's in or out without several appeals going up and i'll call them appeal several decision  you streamline the process describe to me how you have streamline the process and then i'll ask mr to prayer oh if he if he's felt it and if you streamline the process you ought to be able to say i have some evidence that you have you have moved one point three billion since january you say who said that  because of one point two or three billion since january does say to me there's been movement now if you just tell the subcommittee how the movement takes place i will grant you the complexity because i've been sitting with this issue as long as you've been in recovery but if we cannot speak about in any definitive terms about how the streamlining has occurred how juan gets to go within that complexity recognizing that complexity then we are not yet convinced that one streamlining has occurred and two that the timeline which after eligible whether you can still go forward therefore subcommittee or at least this member does not understand you all mr rainwater anybody who thinks they can clarify this issue for us  ma'am for example the some examples a southern university of new orleans most years that we were thirty two million dollars off we gave it to the team we said you've got about you know just depending on you know because it's building the building that was pretty large project so that about ninety days to work through it we actually got together as of what happened is once a team summit it's its progress report we got together as a leadership team myself and charlie actually mark riley tony russell a state joint in federal teen and went through the process now will tell you that i mean that's a joint expert extraditing whether that's the expediting team is made up of engineers on both sides on and the unified public they all got together on this one yes ma'am and so the engineers the architects get together the joy next expediting to get together work through the process again to go into the buildings you know as you know when you hit it just right the mind numbing process of looking at windows you know the ceiling tiles the floors whole nine yards then they bring to us the report and literally we have a we we get the expert on team together decision chain we have a conversation and then expediting leaves in the leadership team debates about what the number is and in this particular case we submitted evidence that we thought that the one of the buildings was over fifty one percent and they accepted that so it helped move the process and then ok this is good to have this example was that a project  above half a million dollars five and thousand well the total was ninety two when you when you add up what we worked out at the end of the day the thirty two million that secretary napolitano announced in august the total was ninety two million dollars for the whole campus simpler so is this kind of send the message that it isn't as complicated as its name it looks like based on certain kinds of the the complicated projects or high cost projects that the earlier that the two teams get together the these projects take virtually virtual joint decision making and they are high cost let's go with those first then you have any priorities like that madam chair in our experiences it's the projects that the local municipality pushes forward in mr actually short tenure in his in his arrival again and the system is if we can resolve it he would take care of it or find a way to resolve it he did that on on two of our major issues before he before he moved on and that was to their credit and mr x and was responsible for helping free up one hundred  million dollars worth of work both of which were twelve months in the waiting resolution at that time a rate you skipped over somebody in order to get to mr x to well no we couldn't resolve it within the t expediting team member that we that we initially why do you need this other team whatever it's called the unified yeah yes ma'am so madam chair when we meet on tuesday mornings as a as a unified public assistance team a leadership team and we go through projects and we set priorities on what needs to happen that week with the expediting team so that they can get out there and get the architects and the engineers i mean this is this is what this was not happening before and it's  although the challenge and i think one of the reasons you don't see you know the larger numbers and bigger greater progress is need more teams to be very frank with you need more architects and engineers and this is the pharaoh i think says in his testimony given the enormous misery the only word for on the gulf coast what should be of greater priority than the put as many folks down there as you can spare are are are going to make progress on getting this money out in the middle of the great depression when people are looking for work and that money is lying on the table waiting to be spent why you don't you have more people down there contention that he needs three times as many people to help him and that he or you know whatever people do you need any more people sir i have to refer that question to tony russell but mr russell knows that he can get as many people as he needs to get the job on tax and i want to ask you to answer for you but do you think that if you had a few more people you could you could do a better job i think that the main the first step and to answer that question is really about taking the existing resources that we have and making sure that we are using them the most effective so you're not convinced that you're using the resources that are on the ground sufficiently to help mrs to follow you think there's more efficiency and work to be pulled out of the people on the ground before you get more personnel here when i know where you live i'm sorry are you from louisiana i'm a resident of the city of seattle washington well you know what i'm thinking about if i'm i'm in louisiana the presence of this money waiting to be spent have enough acts had an effect upon that stimulus funds why should we give any stimulus funds to louisiana if the federal government and the state can't agree on money that's on the table and the one testified that does need any more money to get money on the ground so that people can get work and louisiana can get fixed why should the federal government come up with one more sand for the state when you've got money on the table and you tell me you don't need any more people because you're not convinced that you're getting all the work and all the efficiency out of the people you that mr actions is sort of trying to get to and that is we think that one of things that we've been talking about for example is streamlining this you streamline this process by being smart in allowing local governments to submit architectural engineering documents to the  on having an efficient partnership is to ensure that the engineers that are working for the locals are looking at the design and looking at how to do the parish or the city or the community has to rebuild the structure what are the what are the various design requirements and the costs and then putting it out of bid all the things that are required irrespective of federal funding and then our team takes that and looks at it for the purposes of determining eligibility and  are you looking again at the design for example we look at the design for you're looking at the whole project they've looked at the whole project and when things work as efficiently as they can so you may decide that the project ought to be smaller or  designed differently and so forth is that right fema should not be making those kinds of decisions we show why you hire why are you hiring your own folks then the purpose of hiring the professional engineers or architects or accountants but it but on the engineering side is primarily to to and to to look at the design work that was performed by the applicant or by their hired engineering firm simply for the purposes of determining l was ok then this is of haro that might put you right back to  minus i mean they've looked at it they disagree with a fema with the state which means you are correct does that mean you have to redesign what does that mean you gotta do often oftentimes what it means is there is a dispute that then a second team will have to come and reexamine the initial project for example we've had this with our fire stations we've had this with our roadways right then for theme want to repeat to respond the notion that they're going to respond other than in their own quote best interest has been has already been seen through four years of no action the reason this subcommittee said as disputes occur then then let's get to what was about to happen here is that we're going to have more or at least as much unless you intervene all the time mr x and as much play of expert on expert as we've had before how many experts does it take to know that thema ha structural reason not to agree and the state has a strong i'm not doing that any of your just blaming you for not streamlining the process once a dispute exists yes if you keep negotiating for another year ye you'll come to a resolution what of the people who can't get jobs in louisiana supposed to do while you keep negotiating for another year or for that matter another three months when they're from body declare the still exists let's go on to the next stop instead of getting to another set of of of of experts who will not who have a structural reason to say to you no go back and make them do this that or the other and mr rainwater and mr barrow have this built in structural reason the impatience of the subcommittee comes with not understanding that structural that builds in way in which each party must operate when each party must operate that way when the demonstrated record is that they will operate that way why do we go hire another set of of  experts to try to to try to go at the experts that have just been heard from who does that aid and why is that not simply repeating what the subcommittee what is exasperated the subcom explain that the joint expediting team is in fact designed to be a streamlining enterprise it's designed to but you haven't told me how it streamlined because the other experts going to go out and hire another expert to refute what what had just when found that could we we've had testimony here that there will be two sets of experts now involved on this project manager i think you would agree with us that we do  as an organization have a due diligence requirement and there is a multimeter already hired one instead of experts he's come to a different conclusion than the state's experts why do you know why isn't that the point that dispute resolution is necessary either by appeal or some some of the common sense weighted the fact why are you spending the government money on another set of engineers and architects it made to depend entirely on the characteristics and complexities of that particular project but the bottom line is if in fact as part of that review and reversion in process they reach an impasse they can go to the join expedited team and that joint expediting team will attempt to push that thing through and if they are in sun successful it will go to the unified decision team to make a final determination on that at that point if the decision  unfavorable they have it is now up to them it is their opportunity to enter that into the appeal process or now the arbitration process how many times how many times can you get to do that before declaring a dispute supportive because the state has there is risk involved in this but i don't and we're at this point where we think it's time to take some more risks and that is you allow applicants to provide you know the federal government's paying for the architect and the engineer at the end at the at the at the local level you know i know your i know that and i'm sure a woman so loud that i say well you spend our money and he says it's multiple so let's set an amount let's say a million dollars and say i mean we've got we've got thirty five hundred project work sheets that are valued at about a million dollars or less thirty five hundred they need to be reversion in some in some sense why not go ahead instead of them out and allow the local governments to submit the eighty architect  engineering documents and let's accept those and then the state has the risk if for some reason during the close out the federal government could come back and say that well you know we were the ones that messed up and willing to accept that and were willing to accept the responsibility people on the ground put up charity hospital no contest so we want to know why they're willing to accept that risk you're not willing to give them the risk chairwoman or and i think the the  solution in this based on my experience is to really take the various experts and have their efforts become complimentary clearly when the parish hires a professional engineer to design a facility and its reconstruction its repair replacement we need to be working in concert with those professionals so that we can determine how the grants is written the state can be involved in how the the grant will be administered and the applicant be focused simply on the reconstruction and not not so much on the program and so if it works the way it can it is a complimentary effort of professionals it's complimentary and something has happened to make it worth probably a new administration a lot of pressure put on people on the ground but i want to make sure it continues to rain water as i understand it it's the local governments or the state governments mr farron don't know your court you know you hear from your own bosses the pharaoh would you call the question earlier if you if it was your question to call and get to some kind of appeal to his or arbitration to resolve the matter madam chair the the issue of timing of when we when we take it to an appeal process is is our call if and when we have a definitive decision made if we do not have a have have referred to in terms of a comp complimentary position the additional personnel that that i continue to refer to is not more people on the on the joint expedited team but actual people on the ground writing project work sheets writing versions so that that can move forward at the very start that's what that's what holds us up even after we get eligibility determination  project worksheet or version has to be written in order for that money to be obligated now i'm going to go to mr khouri especially since mr carroll has indicated to me that far from eggs far from expanding the  just sitting up here talking to the different agencies just imagine what kind of frustrations the people who are living in oil and have suffered for the past four years but with that being it was much much much much slower so being on the ground i must say that they have made tremendous tremendous progress and i applaud the work of mr tony russell the director of t r o down there he has worked extremely hard he has been very cooperative to push the recovery forward but at the same time i'm also concerned with if if if if the related to other areas outside of the public assistance program specifically we have a number of functional areas of work inside of our field offices and i believe that each of those is when it relates to  and certain specific areas so let me double check on that and will confirm the staffing levels that are in place currently but i believe any any sort of reductions or outside of the program ok my main the the regulations to be to be released sometime except in september or it might have been all because what we are hearing now that it might not be available until next year this is a poem that we have a m x then is that you have city governments you have agencies you have people like the orleans school board who are waiting for these criteria to see whether or not they will be qualified for the see the waivers because they have to to work out their budgets i spoke with the orleans her school board for instance a couple weeks ago they are having a problem with respect to their seven hundred or so retirees the retirees right now they are making they are receiving approximately i'm not sure that the the amount of money but at this point they are spending more than half of their income on medical insurance expenses and the only way for orleans parish school board to help the seven hundred retirees is to use the amount of l money that they have still in limbo they don't know what to do with because they are fearful that eventually they will have to repay it by the same time you have seven hundred or or eight hundred or so orleans school teachers who have retired waiting to receive benefits from the oregon school board and that's and that's the only money that they can use so you have the orleans school parish you have other minister polities i'm pretty sure most of the fair you are having the same problem is that correct that's correct mr gundersen so you have all the city government you have the orleans parish police superintendent you have the orleans sheriff who are waiting for these criteria to be released  there is a unfortunately there is a there is a rather protracted process that any regulatory effort has to undergo for those regulations are finalized we are proceeding apace with those and we are certainly wish we could tell you that it could move faster and has moved faster through that process it has not but it is not through lack of effort you will see those regulations if you like we will get back to you with some more specifics on exactly when we think those regulations will be promulgated within thirty days or within thirty days submitted this committee the timeline for getting those regulations out so we can inform the entire staff committee ma'am i think i can commit to you much faster than thirty days those timelines you have a deficit that is the biggest in the history of united states a national disaster that that that's the stated eighty percent of the city of new orleans and basically put the city out of commission for  for almost a year i don't see why is there such a difficult decision in forgiving these loans and i just want i just want to know the reason for the difference or at least the discrepanc respect to some of these decisions where you have a smaller devastations with the loans forgiven but then you have a devastation of katrina and the loans might not be forgiven so what is the what is the rationale behind this o loan program that exist in the stafford act does have a forgiveness provision that provision does not automatically kick in but it's in fact a term and at some point following the loan several years after and it's based on the recovery of the jurisdiction that received that loan the special c d o provision did not authorize forgiveness the legislation that authorized forgiveness and therefore we were prevented from from when that legislation was initially enacted from forgiving those loans now i just received information from my account so that the law was changed later on to allow forgiveness in the nationally though when that special c d o program was was initially passed that was the case but that new process or the special c d o program in those loans are still evaluated using basically the very same process that we used to evaluate the regular c d o program and that is based on some number of years after they receive that loan if they have recovered to a sufficient point then they are not eligible for a loan forgiveness if they have not recovered to a specific point then they a but it's going to depend on whether the level and extent of their recovery will determine their eligibility for forgiveness under that program and miss again if you don't mind my my hearing the children frustrations it's been over for years and if you look us with info with with your input which is back to how critical it is for this loan to be given and the pace that needs to be addressed in regard to this issue congressman the the obvious nature of our situation can be summed up in our current budgetary s where we're a small community operating on a forty million dollar annual operational budget  and we're facing a seven point four million dollars shortfall going into two thousand and ten the amount of c d l funds that we received from hurricane katrina is in the neighborhood of eighteen million dollars to have to straits and and without some of these loans that were given in a very expedient way then that would be a tremendous problem when its burden for the people you know paris is that correct it would it would result in direct services being cut from the from the i hesitate to guess i believe that it is it's a three year point that we started valuating the return of revenue to the affected jurisdiction or to the jurisdiction which the applicant for that section four seventeen forty two us the five hundred eighty four cancellation repayment of all or any part of such loan to the extent that revenues of the local government during the three full fiscal year period following the major disaster are insufficient to meet the operating budget of the local government including additional disaster related expenses of a minister pull up aeration character shall be cancel now this sounds very clear to me it requires you to look at the local government's three years three full fiscal year period following the made following the major disaster so my assumption that it would begin immediately after the disaster happened and that it would extend for three three years well the question i have here now is it's been over four years so the time period that you have use in order to assess the situation has i expiry over one year so how much longer do you need in order to make this determination sure and get out based on history in fact we've been able to make determinations about c d o forgiveness and whether jurisdictions that have previously received those have reached that that revenue stream that revenue capability to which you wish you were for and you're exactly correct this is a pretty objective determination but it does require that the applicant of the cd l provide a substantial amount of documentation outlining exactly what their revenue capabilities are at that point i don't know the specifics of each of the cd l applicants but for each one of the applicants that believes that we've taken and do amount of of your government congressman we have documentation from two thousand and six two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight that would clearly indicate our revenue shortfalls for those periods so based on what the parish is basically receiving is that correct that's correct but it seems to me pretty clear i thought i i don't understand this process of reviewing the regulations and to release the regulations and then have them  apply for a waiver or or forgiveness which might giving fema in the place of the most moving might take another one two three four years before you knew all these thoughts or whether or not you would give this loan if the law looks very clear to me is that after three years if they can show you that they cannot that the that they do not have the sufficient much money available that the loans shall be cancel it cannot be any it cannot get any more clear a process that this has to go through they've got to assemble there their information they provide and then those criteria is looked looked at the very same as any jurisdiction that has ever applied for one of these loans their criteria is look that it's just it's a validation process i'm not sure where these particular c d o forgiveness requests are in the in the q but as i indicated  to madam chair we will follow up with you and provide you a status report on every single one of those and let you know when we expect them to be resolved thank you very much i was speaking to  fema have a plan in place to help an area to recover or do we still have the agencies coming in there the federal agencies the different ages go in there and and just haphazardly do things without much coordination without much assistance or without much conversations with with with state and municipal governments  congressman go i think it's important to reinforce the fact that the response to any disaster anywhere in the united states is in fact the quality of that response is going to be directly proportional to the teamwork of all of the level of levels of government that are involved in that response in the way to achieve teamwork is to set up and operate from a unified command perspective and to you know have th in place missed it because the loosely because it is that so can can strike any day and we want to know whether or not there is a plan in place to quickly implement to help and we have to recover because if if those areas have to wait like the people of new orleans of louisiana to wait after katrina after like texas have to wait after hurricane ike then we have a problem we have a problem that needs to be solved very quickly i agree congressman go and i would suggest that the disasters that we've responded to whether they be in north dakota or georgia since hurricane katrina have demonstrated that the agency has come a long way in terms of reforging and re understanding and pursue rich even the kind of unified federal state local level approach to disaster response and recovery that's necessary to begin that process right from the very beginning so yes sir i think we've we've got a plan and i think we're ready to go and what is the status of this national recovery strategy the national disaster recovery you were saying that you i if i were to follow your last statement that you have all these steps ready you have all this great plan together i need to know the status of it you know i was referring to the architecture that we have in place by which we operate and respond to disasters wherever they occur and that's called the national response framework and that national response framework is not just limited to respond i think you don't have one right now is that correct no sir that's not correct we do have a plan to respond to disasters what about a plan and to help an area we cover after after a disaster i was talking about a plan to help and we have recover if you what you are talking about is the national disaster recovery strategy that was mandated by congress that effort is underway that is what is the thousands that mr garrett status in terms of the national national recovery strategy the status is that it is under development sir how far into this development is that is this plan this is the strategy would it be ready if the hurricane were to to come down into the coffin in next week or so would be ready to be implemented then and there no sir the plan will not be completed within the next couple of weeks in fact i would not expect the plan to be completed for a number of months  but that does not mean that the federal emergency management agency and our partners do not understand what is necessary to respond to and recover from a four years for you all to devise a national recovery strategy i don't understand how much how much longer you need in order to come up with a plan this method madam chair it just baffles me that four years after katrina after that of a station we still don't have a plan of recovery so i'm i don't really know what else we have to do in order to encourage fema to come up with a strategy one point i'd like to make congressman if you don't mind is that a national strat she is one thing but all disasters are unique and all disasters are different and the real strategy that's going to support a fast and rapid recovery of any particular geographical area is going to be the strategy that's developed between the federal government between the affected states and between those jurisdictions within that state they need to come together they need to figure out the unique characteristics of that disaster and their recovery and they need to forge together a tailored recovery plan for that affected area that's the purpose of e s f fourteen the long term community recovery and acts and they've been unusually successful in helping forge those sorts of planning activities and states throughout this nation you can provide us with the status of this national recovery strategy we would really now there was a statement that was said a couple of months ago by the gentleman would yield than the national disaster strategy is to gather the cue for two for the nation which would include of course the gulf coast storm did not destroy a few mccain later and destroyed it and i'm talking about some of this flood mappings that we have i know that in in louisiana people are suffering from high insurance rates  flood instruments for example can run from two up to five six thousand dollars in flood insurance i live in an area where i believe i pay if i remember the numbers correctly about four thousand dollars for flood insurance per year because of this velocity zone i know that we have a fire house out there that was obligated by fema and then the obligated by fema  after deflowered maps came out now you have people that have homes that have businesses that they that's been there for a number of years and now in order for them obligate the repairs of these fire stations and then the application them based on these flood map that federal funding does not go towards finding risky venture if in fact we're going to fund somebody building below flood level area that we've identified as a flood zone and in fact basically based on your rationale that that if a committee were to return and it happens to be in a high velocity zone and based on the russian that you are saying that well we're not going to give you a firehouse so that we can encourage you to move out of your neighborhood or if you decide to live there we can just go ahead and let your house burn down is that correct no sir that is absolutely not correct if you will if you'll allow me to finish there are a couple of options available to that jurisdiction one if they're interested in building that firehouse and not elevating that above the flood risk but they're free to do so but they won't get federal funding to do that on the other hand if they want to mitigate that firehouse to whatever risk they face federal funding may be available to them so the answer is that it's going to depend on what the jurisdiction and the applicant want to do federal government is interested in reducing risk to american citizens  you know what the damage to the facility was there's no doubt that there were in a dispute right now in cameron parish for example about a school whether or not it will be rebuilt or not or whether the library will be rebuilt or not and as you said earlier congressman it's important that i mean these are communities that these are working communities there's a reason they live along the gulf coast there's a reason that you know myself and the governor than advocates for allowing these people to live on the gulf coast cameron parish is an example as two of the largest liquefied natural gas facilities in the country for fueling the country twenty five percent of fish and shrimp come from the gulf coast as you know and so we are in dispute  about some fire stations and some shares substations and some schools that are on the gulf coast and also some roads in grand isle for example and a fire station so i don't think we i don't think we've resolved  the challenge for us and obviously we want to be smart about the way we rebuild in louisiana but i think that we can figure that out and i think that you know again it goes back to the state taking but then by the obligat the project with the lease you no recourse whatsoever you have to let corrupt basically either repair it and take the risk that you know if it's damaged again which i think you know most of us are willing to do that if we would get no federal assistance are you move the project informed by being on the ground and you began your question by giving me ma and the state their due by saying on the ground you have seen significant process and i do want to be understood to command the state and theme of for that progress any time i see that figure one point two or three million dollars and little more than six months i know something been happening problem i'm having is finding out how it happened and i you know i i think the way to avoid circular questioning is to say to you m mentioned on page three of this testimony there seem to have eliminated a number of bureaucratic impediments i need to know specifically what were those impediments did the i g or any other oversight committee concur with their lemonade what offices or procedures were consolidated were any employees affected there's something about having to put something in writing that disciplines the mind to the extent that you see this it will in fact begin to be understood and it seems to me may even begin to happen in a way that it has been hard for the subcommittee to figure out from your testimony in part because of the complexity of explaining it for example if i were to write this out i would give specific examples mr garrett on page five mention thirty two previously see that's the kind of concreteness that i commend thema and the state mr rainwater for thirty two previously stalled project in regard mr to power they say to eligibility just thank you one outlines what i'm talking about without a whole big fifty page response that you do quite enough for this committee names of the thirty two previously stalled projects with regard to eligibility how underneath that i would put in a paragraph no less than that may take only a sentence  how the eligibility issue was resolved if one sees that in black and white one might then go to those procedures more readily and in the future i'm going to ask mr daniels as far as we're concerned you're not a bystander to this project the fact that theme and the state know you were coming on board may have something to do with the progress it's already been made and it's all right with us i guess the fact that there is a supreme court the united many people work a little harder although the last thing i want to do is a lawyer whose practice before the supreme court is despite the courts is any example of what we'd like to see replicated here  be useful at all but we'd like to see it click in as soon as possible so the more the parties can go back over what one another the less effective your process is going to be give a scene there if they can just keep you out there you know better than not being there at all or the the process that i'm most familiar with this force dispute resolution is the contract disputes and the triggering process and it is that the contractors submit so claim to the contracting officer if he doesn't get a decision within a certain period of time he can file an appeal with the board of contract he so it's incumbent on that we're going to certain period of time i realize that the contracts you deal with are far less complex are not as complicated but time just give us some idea of how such a mechanism where sixty days for a claim below one hundred thousand dollars for a claim above one hundred thousand dollars the contracting officer must respond within sixty days to give a date which he will make it sound so rational he must be  reasonable does that sound that you handle some of the biggest appeal now do you handle some of these appeals from the defense department we did not do the defense department that's the only depart was the biggest  you might handle but we we've had appeals up into the hundred million dollars i think that's good enough for me and if it's a major buildings what's wrong with the process then this the ten year old has explain what happened twenty ten yes and so the louisiana recovery authority is consolidated organization that are run with the community out block grant dollars and the female public assistance dollars expires july two thousand and ten and so and then what happened well then they go in the pipeline yes ma'am so there are a billion dollars have been obligated we've paid out about four we think we're going to get another three and a half to four billion depending on the versioning process now half a billion of that is charity hospital which the state is preparing the biggest news to come out of this hearing at that time running on on charity hospital we will send it no later than friday but possibly tomorrow and then we did send our second appeal of just a placeholder made the decision to go to the may be the biggest and the most desperate of the outstanding this man and then there are about fourteen projects that are over about fifty million dollars representing about one point four billion dollars so you do feel that you can handle projects well below five hundred thousand dollars within this process that you've been using yes ma'am we believe we can there are going to be some others there are about thirty projects that we've picked that will possibly go to arbitration you're go with four you run out of gas how you can get all that done given the process of multiple not appeals interesting multiple steps with architects and engineers before you can get to the dispute stage ma think one of the things that we're trying to do again is you know we were one of the things we've created between the state and the federal merged management agency is sort of this you know concept team to sit down and and if we can get to a point for example one the ideas on the table is except architectural engineering reports that it's at a certain amount and so that we might not notice let's let's remember we're trying to make this a dispute resolution session in itself you heard mr rain for example with about three thousand that are under a million dollars we could work through that process very quickly if they were to accept it does that relate to the earlier the risk yes man there's a cost more than that yes but i have to ask in light of the fact that otherwise the federal government would be spend money on more snow honey out of my own pocket and they're willing to assume the ris i don't need depending on everything depends on you heard him say under a certain amount he is our did because we can continue with the architectural stuff and we continue to go through all these appeal all of which we pay for what he's saying we'll assume the risk that's how desperate we are you can imagine mr x and mr garrett that the cost of labor the cost of everything is much lower than it would have been four years ago so i'm not sure if you're there assuming so much respect is so dangerous so anxious to work small business and business in the state and throughout the region i'm not sure that this isn't anything but win win unless there's some bureaucratic sense that the federal government doesn't operate that way although if we had any private parties in the room i know what the answer would be because i don't see where we lose they made lose given my understanding of what it's like down the i don't think they have much of a chance for losing therefore i see it is a win win i want to know mr x than why that isn't a win win for certain projects i think the most important outcome that we we were continually striving toward with with all the various local officials and certainly with the state is just again to have the various professionals are involved in each of our facts you cannot come before this committe without answering my question understand if i didn't ask you about the professionals see for years i've been sitting here with the professionals i asked you a very specific question and sir i want a specific answer i said why isn't their willingness to assume the risk holding the federal government liable for nothing further given an estimate following the professionals having given it given that to you they start their architects engineers and the like why isn't that a win for the government and therefore a win win since they would agree to that mr m daniels who i must tell you being in touch with court suits with settling court suits having clerks for a federal judge i want to tell you that that's likely to be the outcome in  first place you don't need to say so mr daniels and the matter is before you but i know how things work when a dispute resolver gets into the act so i have to ask you with some sense th nothing to lose here because you're able to sign off and report to the subcommittee one last project do with mr rainwater saying it's been so long we're willing to accept the risk why should that not put be put into operation now with respect to certain projects it may very well be an outstanding idea madam chair i personally would like to know a little bit more about the exactly what is being proposed here but conceptual i think it sounds like a worthwhile idea and we're all an intimate look to look yes we can ask you to go see it i'm sure this isn't the first thing it's ever time it's ever come up and let me ask this with the rainwater i want you to set out what you just said you would propose for projects under what amount i want you to get it to him quick enough so that he within thirty days we can see whether or not mr garrott accept that as a possibility a possible way that to respond yes ma'am let me let let me say something about mr house question in this you're not paying back this money that's been borrowed from three eleven let me tell you what is happening to outstanding debt that means that that has affected their bond rating their ability to borrow on wall street to the extent that it's affected their bond rating you know what that means it means that the people of louisiana as a result of this what is a result of no decision having been made are all on the borrowings that mr tao indicated that the people of louisiana four years after katrina are paying more to borrow money in the middle of a recession than they were paying four years ago and what were good times this is this an additional outrage you got a borrow money you're paying more to borrow money and the federal government because of the  dealing with these regulations and mr cowles pressed on is was found support for lowering the bond ratings of the parishes and of the state itself i mean that is a shame and an outrage accountable for and we wanted to put on the record the effect it's having on a state that was already in worse state given the trina than than any other state now some of this i'm just say hearing that today yes yes medicare's of this morning we were hearing confirmation that there would be personnel shifted to embed with st bernard parish on how many people do you expect to embed  that according to mr russell the director of the t r o he indicated that there would be one lead and four for additional personnel that would work out of st bernard parish government in the state of always as opposed to st bernard parish yeah dedicated to recovery don't have specific figures between six hundred and eight hundred within thirty days the exact number and to what functions and where are they doing their work please  very pleased to hear about the tulane library and its was an easy project if you know you you you learn things not only by ball language about what we did bu example perhaps you could use tulane as an example of how some breakthrough occurred the i'm the notion i need to know where these layers are go how about appeal is that still in the process i mean the arbitration is pretty quick if we get to the point where you have no dispute but we had this other appeal for those projects that were in appeal when the legislation implementing the arbitration process were promulgated we suspended any and favor well action on any of those appeals we continue to review the appeals and in fact if we found in favor of any of those we notified and continue to notify is that still in use only for those projects that were were in process then no ma'am the process is also available for new issues that arise it's going to be up to ok applicants are at the ceremony going to have to tell the subcommittee we didn't mean to impose another layer please forgive us the process that we had concern about was not so much the it was getting to the point where the dispute was declared now i'm all mixed up we still have the appeal whereas i thought once we got to disappear you got to mr daniels we could solve the matter and that's it so what in the world is the is the appeal process therefore in the first place an old fashioned traditional process for new matters the appeal process is what it is these are complimentary avenues for an applicant so it's one or the other that is correct i missed the brain order and listed to faroe why do you need to process the that you can go to because it i mean when you look at charity hospital is just so calm and so complex that you'd prefer which for us arbitration yes ma'am we would just felt as though they wanted things that we had been sort of fighting for was this whole idea that you know when we  just had hit heads to a point where folks were bleeding in the room it was time to bring in an independent how does the annual process work all right you chose appeal not for charity but for some lesser project what would that entail rainwater is that process with appeal with an appeal and then rio peel why would anybody choose that process even for smaller than charity hospital process if he simply wanted to get something done yes ma'am the difference between and you know jay's ability to solve complex matter involving multi million dollars that they do every day and solving smaller projects all the time you have indicated why would you rather go through these cumbersome appeals why would you ever choose that one why would we would choose an appeals process well the simpler projects the local  said that's a pretty straightforward process even i can understand it in one telling what are the timelines to appeal the timelines of the kind that mister give me something comparable to what he said both appeal level have ninety days to render an appeal determination once they receive that appeal and then of course there's another appeal that would be it either level so whether it's the first  have ninety days to render determination as they might have a mat such a timeline is in meaning these timelines are now we we are not meeting the timelines universally no ma'am yes we have we need a lot of timelines but we are not meeting all the time of course not and you the timelines that you discussed for other projects generally speaking once a case gets to the board and it's ready for decision we get that you know somewhere between two and four months having heard that mr rainwater do you still prefer appeals up here to washington no ma'am i'd rather resolve them down the state issues that were occurring down the drain just recovery office so africans want to do the appeal to come to washington d c and we actually worked to mr garrett and mr garrett so work with us we created an opportunity for rainwater i'm having a hard time understanding except that's the way it's always been why you wouldn't go to arbitration do you really think that the bureaucrats in washington going to be more friendly to the states in just choosing chair i think it's important to know from our standpoint when the arbitration legislation was passed that is what is now triggered the appeal to the region prior to that the the appeal wasn't heard at the at the regional level so we would we had a direct appeal within the t r o and then and then to washington well it's important so for the appeal to the regional well let me put it in the context one of the things that at the local level we we attempt to do it is resolve it and that trigger point when we get to an appeal or move to arbitration is similar to being in a and labor disputes that would be the case i want to know that was not the intent of this legislation the intent of this legislation was to you have a decision and to put it in the hands of somebody who was not paid in his own interest because we didn't see any reason here we did not blame the state or any more and that's why in my opening statement i said there are structural reasons why they can't be expected to easily come to a decision so we did not see this as patterned on the labor union process we saw it much more patterned on negotiation process processes where people come  together if i could just give you an example from my own experience when i was appointed to chair the equal employment opportunity commission back in the day in the in the carter administration came to an agency that a hundred thousand person backlog and i decided that i was in had one allow them to continue to go to court or to somehow take all these things through some very formal procedure so we we we did something that we call rapid charge processing which essentially was a negotiated process except the way we did it was we brought instead of using the the investigator only to investigate the cases and then come back and say late in the process we found this reason why you might be found liable and say to have a say the complainant this reason why you might not prevail up front they would go into a room with the employer let's take a discrimination complaint where a woman says i was late ten minutes for  maybe four five times in the last six months and i was dismissed and i think they dismissed me because i as a  luck because then you have not shown discrimination in the burden is on you now he is going to say we dismissed her because she was late and we had other side of him hear this and we believe that was time for mr rainwater it is understanding that they got a chance they don't take are they going to spend their money hoping that they will come out on top once these records that have to process or are they going to cut losses let me tell you what the employee who is had and has alleged discrimination is ready to accept a settlement from the employer which may mean which may be any kind of settlement may mean that she's been fired and she doesn't come back it may mean she got a little recovery and may mean that if you promise is not to be tardy she would be  we hiring whatever it is we're able to negotiate the matter because each steals from jeopardy and just wait it out i'm trying to use as an example to the say that i see the present process especially with the appeals putting jeopardy on both sides when i'm interested in where and when on both sides and yet to a certain degree all of you seem locked into well we've done a little better in the appeals process just cut your losses right now and have the money except the estimate i'm just want to get to decision that's why i tell you that anecdote to indicate that the the appeal process carries that risk and i would like to eliminate the risk which i ever got a structure to on each side and just get to decision one way or the other preferably through real short cuts like mr rainwater if i take it you endorse that kind of short cut the estimate i do manage r if not i am amazed at anybody wanting to come to washington really appeal and all the rest of it until you get the right answer hoping you'll get the right answer rather than going to an arbitrator who would have to go through something like the process i'm going to have to explain to each side what their jeopardy was and their lawyers would under the people who are competent them would understand they would then grownups that they are decided they were going to cut their losses or not at issues of construction and cost estimates not policy so there is a reason the so how the appeals process especially if we conflict on policy one way to say give me all just a moment are you suggesting that the arbitrator could not decide the policy issue as i understand it unless i'm mistaken but that's what gives me i don't think we had a policy issue by that point i really if we can get all the way to the point where the architects and the engineers the down to what the amount should be and how it should be configured and a question of policy is raise i don't know why what this is all about or why the arbitrator who is a lawyer side within the bounds of the law the same law that the administrators who may or may not be lawyers and therefore given it to people like the arbitrator is to decide for them so i don't understand why up and that is the case then count on us to clarify that matter and i want to know mr garrett do you believe the arbitrator has no ability under the statute we pass to decide the question within the law the full law as applies to that too to thema and it's regulations do you believe that is an impediment here  believe some clarification is in order madam chair certainly the arbitration panel can decide issues affected by policy in other words policy says this is not eligible we don't think it's eligible the applicant does think it's eligible under that policy the arbitration cannell can render a decision on that but the arbitration panel cannot do is make policy as part of that process they're not charged with doing that the that the policy issues with a large that word is it has to be reserved format how does where the statutory intent is involved should not be involved and if they are i need you all to tell me that right now have this then a matter of law that's a policy is not discretion but now a major policy matter is implicated is that how much of this is due to that how many projects on the ground is the pharaoh do you think have been because of policy matters i go to the law itself to the ability of the month to make the decision that's what a policy matter is otherwise the my has enormous discretion mr rainwater madam chair experiences that female has had enormous discretion and that it has been a common discussion that in eligibility or eligibility determinations are often differentiated between statutory authority versus policy decisions and oftentimes it falls on the side of the fema policy would make something ineligible versus that the statutory regulation allowing that some rainwater is going to have to  concretize for me by example a policy matter that should not go to the arbitrator give me an example you missed x and somebody tell me give me an example of that so i know what you're talking about one example would be the one the demolition of homes for economic recovery is a policy that's a perfectly that is a policy that we we wanted we asked the federal emergency management agency to demolish houses that considered a health and safety risk then we could not demolish homes or get pheno reimbursement for under the economic recovery policy that would be that you are that's a matter for you to decide but would have to come is that a new issue would that be a new issue for example that has been ever been an issue that we have been fighting or pushing back on for quite some time effects present to farmers parishes immensely let me suggest that if there is a new issue  get the policy determination so that the matter can go forward without the in mixed in with the particular amount of the particular parish etc can you can you not demolish homes had you made the decision we have made a decision and we have demolished homes where we determination has been made that those abandoned or damaged structures present an immediate threat to health and safety so what is  there's a provision for ak to do this under economic recovery and we asked for that were ok let me read to you  just necessary to do it section two zero six dash to twenty four hundred debris removal and under public interest you know what all it means is somebody's got to bite the bullet  on that loss and investigations and then you became an administrative law judge and you've been an administrator's large out for how long for twenty two years and during that time you have been you've had to construe the laws of which agencies for most of that period the general services administration and about twenty other agencies and that for the last almost three years all the agencies the government other than the defense department  lay that on the record because it's to the to the section a public interest clearly  at large or mitigate the risk the life itself brought brought us this so i don't know why i an administrator or multiple administrators in washington are better equipped to interpret this language and then arbitrators who may have been interpreted thing even more difficult and complicated language for decades so i don't understand that the fact that there is a policy matter makes who gets the appeal any different given what congress has mandated and this board has been mandated to make that decision l j is there to interpret the law of the particular agency and they are equipped to read federal law way across agency bounds and they  very well equipped i submit to you better equipped than any administrator of an agency because they will be comparing how they have made similar decisions regarding other agencies so right now unless somebody at that table can tell me that there is a specific reason why i am not indicating anything except  multiple ways to go without any objective reason for knowing why is not acceptable i want to know why they should be multiple ways to go when one way involves multiple appeals and the other way to get me an answer right away because we have unless we have not disposed of the powers in question the notion that you have said that the that the arbitrator is not empowered to answer that is false that's only word for fal under mandate of law and under his also he is required to make a decision in the very same manner and perhaps even more objectively because he is not involved it is not his agency's money than multiple appeals up the chain of command and that my friends is what the congress had in mind when he said go to it so the fact that you're playing off one against the other is a matter of huge concern or and to us it violates the congressional intent was to say you can reach a decision go forward go to the arbitrator get it reached in the name of the people w chairwoman i will send if if that is clear i will send all the bills to arbitration i want to quick process but i was told that policy decisions could not be handled by the arbitrator or and i want to correct that right now the matters your counsel has a different interpretation as a lawyer i invite him to i'm very open to hearing a different interpretation right here me i'm reading from the statute this is what the congress of the united states public l one twenty three when it public law one eleven dash five february seventeenth two thousand and nine not withstanding when congress really wants you to do something it begins with notwithstanding shall we always use those words when we say leaving no doubt shall have sufficient authority regarding the award or denial of disputed public assistance applications for corey covered hurricane damage under section four three of the stafford act etc i don't think we wrote the statute in any very big language shall have the authority notwithstanding whoever else is there this after congress was stand up with having pressed all kinds of discretionary dispute resolution which famous kept giving us the back of their hand there is a mandate gentleman go to these folks settle it so why anybody want to forward multiple appeals this way we do not know but i tell you is contrary to the statutory intent and language as i have just read you know if you disagree i hear your response appeal they can arbitrator seek arbitration now i mean this said notwithstanding mr garrett so why should they bother with appeals going through a bureaucracy that is self interested because it's within the agency through this not just read you the statute and ask you if you disagree with the language i've just read that said notwithstanding any other mechanism they can go to an arbitration i don't disagree with that and notwithstanding any mechanism they can go to an arbitrator they may elect to go to an arbitration route rather than the formal appeal route they may alack to do that i understand that i want to ask why you would want them to go through more of the administrative bureaucracy they then have to be on a straight or perhaps to the lowest level why would you want them to continue through the administrative bureaucracy if you wanted to get something done why is that preferable ever to going to somebody who can decide the issue and if it is not policy then what is it and i just i think eliminated that it is policy and if you disagree with that then tell me what is the policy and if it's something other than policy then tell me what other than policy would lead one to want to go through the appeal process or madam chair for the gulf coast approximately a third of the appeals are being found in favor of the appellant so i would suggest for example that if an appellant has submitted several appeals and been successful in that process they may very well want to continue to use the appeal process rather than all right mr rainwater you apparently you're a third is good enough for him why don't you during god this third meaning it's the quickest best avenue for the state no ma'am that's why we wanted an arbitration panel again madam chairwoman as i understood it the arbitration annele if i'm wrong i'm wrong and follow that will send for example the good the economic the demolition for economic recovery be decided by an order by the arbitration panel is that something that the arbitration panel can overturn absolutely i've just read the language and i have nobody's responded and you want your lawyer to send me some here ten days to get me a response to that but i can read statutory language as well as he can and there is no legislative history here xcept what we make in this process and i can tell you right now that if anything the legislative history was all the stuff you have tried as best leave the appeal process has been in the way get to a decision this is a far a would you take your chances on arbitration with the new clarified information it certainly would would make make us much more readily ready to choose that option yet we are not eliminating this is a special circumstance the statute says sorry gulf coast region so we're not saying that the appeal process that we all like it that way for ever is gone and we say recover it's hurricane katrina or rita for god's sakes we're only talking about one delayed circumstance in the middle of a recession with people on able to to build even smaller projects and with just getting  except for matters in the appeal process now why it matters should not go to the arbitrator who does have built in timelines that he also the time needs unlike the process up here unless you can get me a legal reason why this committee expects that you will for new matters go to the arbitration process we will respond to you within the ten days we requested madam chair but i would like to state once again our preference would be to give these applicants an option i don't you know you don't have a preference to help mr rainwater out you have a preference for your decision as is the case two thirds of the time to be the decision of the administrator who actually is of course involved and also has to be presumed to have some predisposition that you're not doing this is a favor to mr rainwater because he happens to prevail one third of the time  prevail two thirds of the time i mean it's hard for me to accept that you just heard this it's a borrowing this rainwater said if they had their druthers but for this part of the obstacle they would go straight to the arbitrator well you've got ten days for a legal that's a very good question sir we've been given quite widely varying estimates by the people we've talked to fiume as to how many cases we would have the initial estimate was somewhere between fifty and sixty cases i think we would clearly have no problem handling that many cases if the numbers start skyrocketing we will have to look for ways of supplementing our numbers how many cases the you have right now we have right now about five hundred cases and it was first and what a gentleman you know it's like all right now you don't have the same people on five hundred cases fifteen were handled by how many judges fifteen administrative judges thank you but then you have five hundred cases that you are doing that is outside of the how those judges will operate given the caseload they have we should have no problem anding some numb thema cases to the number of cases we have right now using the same number of judges that we have right now so the intent of this operation operation part of this to expedite the resolution of of these disputes it seems to me that you have fifteen judges who are handling five hundred cases that are outside of the femur this dispute resolution project and you have on top of that fema projects they have that you have to resolve it seems to me just just defeat the purpose of the operation panel a difference between the case we have now and the fema cases is that there's a considerable sense of urgency to the fema case most of the other cases that we have right now proceed along at the pace that the lawyers wish to take the case most of those cases so if the lawyer were to take three four five six months to prepare a case that  three thousand cases that are under a million dollars is that correct yesterday about three a little over three thousand project work sheets to represent about a dollars and they're all less than one million dollars actually so what is the difference between your figures and the figures that is willing to pay well so we did a survey of applicants to see what they thought the dispute was on the estimation process and the survey itself and remember that so you know local local government and other state applicants somewhere between three to five billion dollars we think we don't think it's five billion we think it's lower than that  a has proposed that's just what i don't know what that would have to take a look at that because it seems to me that if the difference is a few million dollars what can we just resolve those three thousand p w think get it done and over with and you have to psych case by case by case by case congressman were some there are some examples where we've moved forward on you know with charlie's helping tony russell where there was a dispute over ten thousand dollars in our point was just let's just move forward i mean if  with with the help of general andrew and others obviously for the recovery school district in new orleans and we're actually in the process of preparing a lump sum settlement based off of you know for example cost about fifty we believe it cost about fifty six thousand dollars per student to build an entire school system but but at this point the law only applies to the i r s yes sir that's right that's correct so there's so we need a legislative fix in order need you would need legislation when i will say this so the role does apply to the recovery school district and other primary and secondary education facilities in the impacted areas but it would not doesn't apply to higher education universities police and fire stations public works roads other things now mr garrett i spoke with the the inspector general and he told me that the present regulation as interpreted by fema i actually too narrow that you all can basically go back and revise your regulations to allow for these lump sum of settlement procedure quite quickly do you dispute that i can i cannot dispute it but it would certainly require that i go talk to the same individuals that you talk to and i would like to discuss their basis for that if that's the case we're certainly willing to look at that but just a couple more questions with respect to h r thirty to forty seven that is the bill that got passed through the house but it's now in the senate there is a proof vision that will provide alternative projects where the penalty instead of twenty five percent it's only ten percent how helpful do you see that provision is to the state very helpful and we in the  the arbitration i mean the congressman in the language that was passed to help us with a lump sum payout penalty for the recovery school district well actually there were three provisions one was a lump sum one was waiving the alternative penalty and then the other was waiving you know the insurance penalty instead of building by building it was done on campus by campuses those provisions in total save the state about six hundred million dollars the alternative project penley saved about two forty seven as i remember be extremely important to you know local communities and i think present a far would agree that that would be helpful i would congressman and fact on the n f i b mandatory deduction we have been seeking  the same relief that the criminal justice and educational systems were granted for a one time relief which would which would recover almost five million dollars in eligible funding for st bernard parish projects now i know that there was a lack of clarity with respect to outstanding numbers of projects that are still not resolved in our last hearing before  ranking member mike do you have that number one how many project where sheets are still outstanding we have as i understand it we believe there are about four thousand project work sheets that are going through some sort of reversion in process and based off of the governor's office homeland security emergency repairs numbers that they provided to us last week and you said that the combined value would be between five and six million dollars we know our visit would tween three and five billion congressman if you're depending so i go we still got some we all admit that we have some work to do on our side to narrow that number down and to get you to give you a better numbers well but that was based off the apple conserving applicants were asked are you satisfied with the versioning process and what do you believe you know how many projects work should you have in dispute that's what local government gave us so so with the thousands of projects still outstanding my question here is  does mr tony russell have the resources to to expediently without this issues because i have to say that he has done a wonderful job and i hope you can keep him down to this think it's resolved but i hope that it would get resolved very very quickly so is there can you provide mr russell with and this you know resources for him to do this  job thank for the comments regarding the attorney russell we share your view that he has done an outstanding job out there as indicated earlier we'll provide to mr russell whatever resources he needs to be effective in his role and if he needs more personnel than he knows that those are and i just have one one last question and it concerns the port of new orleans i know that there is there is a dispute at the port of new orleans we are in regards to how much money did we see from  rom insurance with versus how much money that seem will be is willing to provide the port can you provide me with a status of the port of new orleans maybe within the week or  one the settlement amount that the port negotiated with the insurance carrier and i believe it was actually multiple carriers that there was an ongoing disagreement and really i would say a kind of a fundamental lack of of good communication among the various folks about exactly how they came to that settlement and how that related to the policy limits and all that and their their position was that the settlement i'm out under the circumstances and for their existing policy was in fact reasonable and should become the basis for our deductions  their estimate around eight hundred million dollars of damages was caused by katrina i'm pretty sure the fema disputes that what is the status with respect to the switch and a lot of board and then my second question is do you all have a a a prioritized plan where you looking at some of these disputes and say we need to address this issue first and then next and then you go from there or whatever comes first come first serve what is the procedure so with one with respect to certain water board what does status of that issue into whether or not you have a plan a priority to address some of these needs because i know that for example the s they have come to mean say the city of norman might go without water any day now and you can you have a city that's going to have no water and no sewage you will have chaos on your hand and that's what immediately and how long would that take fourteen days ok because i don't want people three hundred four hundred thousand people be without water or sewage or understanding and then from the a unemployment rate unemployment rate in louisiana you know i will tell you the the southeast region was written up in the economist magazine as one of the places where you could write out the recession based off we're we're getting out about twenty five million dollars a week in public assistance money another seven million dollars a week in develop block grant money i don't remember it's just one of those things that obviously for louisiana what's happened is unemployment is regional and but there have been a lot of construction jobs created through i think what we did last year towards the end of last year and then this year we've been able to push dollars out fairly quickly there's there is some optimism if we can get charity settled the veteran's administration is committed to building a hospital there is talk about about medical center in downtown new orleans where we've been able to build about twelve  mixed income communities in new orleans and so those have created jobs in optimism as well although there are still areas that are hurting we are beginning and i think what's happened in louisiana is it not to belabor the answer but what we have seen is that and i'm pleased to hear that the stimulus funds and the need to rebuild in the rebuilding is going on and had an effect on the unemployment rate by close of business tomorrow which is what wednesday would you please submit to the committee when the n not used to you even given the hold up of the projects that would have gone absolutely the millis funding we continue to actually seek and put into action for many of our projects  you have an extra bounce of stimulus because of this house standing amount and therefore we particularly mindful that i'd like that's why i'm another question so to get on the record i understand you had a workshop in each of the states that had the opportunity to do this and we invited state and local leadership to attend those to answer their questions so yes ma'am so generally on the ground they understand how the arbitration process would operate if you can if you came to that point it's never been faxed and yes that was the purpose of the outreach efforts and i believe it was last thursday last thursday i was doing it yes meant that route we had about fifty applicants concerned about the larger projects the ones that have million dollars and so we thought that was a colossally i were a just to have great big projects is because we believed it was already clear here that you could have been using alternative dispute resolution all along but it was and it was in your discretion in your discretion was not to use it so i'm going to look at this this is what we were relying on i'm going to ask you a question based on that and on what it looks like you may already be considering  doing with projects under five hundred thousand dollars  w section five u s c section five seventy two of the a d r act the alternative dispute resolution area of evolution resolution acts ari of nine hundred ninety six and agency may use dispute resolution proceeding for the resolution of an issue in controversy that relates to the administrative program of the parties agree to such proceeding  do you agree that you have that authority mr gary at least that you have that authority under the language i just read i certainly agree with the with the legal citation that you as permissive because it says it says establish the panel shall have this vision authority and then say anything about if both parties agree it just says to it now the reason i ask this question is because i want to be plain you had authority under it would appear under five u s c five seventy two if the parties agreed to do  that you could give matters under five hundred thousand to the arbitrator for quick decision under the existing a d r act if all parties agree speaking for fema man i am not prepared to say i do not necessarily agree with that within ten days section five us seize five seventy two i want to know whether council agrees that  the parties agree to such proceeding this section of the law authorizes any dispute resolution including arbitration  i'm not even into this kind of stuff anymore i'm now considering i'll put you on notice language that would put everything under it and would give guidance as to what kind of things would go under it we don't see anything any other way to proceed we think that the the fact that that state and the parish was told you know that they could go to either one really was a way of circumventing the intent of the statute which was a quick decision we don't have a dime in that dollar in terms of how the decision was made we don't with congress it's past the point of deciding how we want the decision to come come out i want to ask mr rainwater and mr barrow if they think projects under five hundred thousand if the parties agree understanding then i see problems in that and then i want to ask this is daniels if we were to put more projects whether or not in light of the scout questions that would just put them on their shoulders and they have the  rwoman the so the way the breakdown works i mean for example we've got about fourteen projects over fifty million dollars but eighty one projects over ten but less than fifty and  then five hundred ninety seven that range between one million and ten million and then as i stated earlier we have the three thousand that are below the one million mark so there are number of projects that are below five hundred thousand that you know there are some that are too small  it and so we would support that because what happened here is in your discretion grown up people who've been in this process for this long could you think draw the line has to kind of project we're talking about given the given how broadly is chair so if they're trying to circumvent they say i don't need i don't need staff help i'll get it on reading the plain language of statutes and i'm not saying that you have to do anything i'm just want to know what's in your authority to do  small to large some of these are you understand why the congress decided that over five hundred thousand we just couldn't live with anymore but suppose they were to go to those numbers between thirty thousand and what would that top number thirty million i'm sorry two million yes ma'am and well of the one project we have over two hundred millions of charity hospital nights that's going to be gone this week but there's only one project like that yes ma'am that's right and then there are fourteen that are over the fifty million dollar right over the fifty million dollar range so last sorry actually i said five hundred million over five hundred thousand yes ma'am so we've got about three thousand that would be around in either and i don't have the exact numbers but there about three thousand that are less than one million or between that one million all the way down to think we have one that's four thousand dollars to be very honest with you so that's that's sort of so we took three thousand of those  huge amounts you often are called upon to handle and i suppose some smaller amounts as much as well and given the range you've heard here what do you think would be an optimum amount i think congress was wise to start have fourteen projects that are over fifty million and then about eighty one projects between ten and fifteen million and then five hundred ninety seven that are between one million and ten and about three thousand that are below a million dollars so you mean you think the larger amount first yes because the resources we have that moment are finite and as we proceed we can supplement those resources we will do whatever it takes to make the process work and you know you would supplement resource we're not going to require the pork to take on more than it should but you are prepared to supplement the resources arbitration process is that as we go along hearing evidence issuing arbitration decisions i think that the the people in the state of louisiana and the people at fema will be able to see how the cases are coming out to figure out which way the wind is blowing and a lot of those disputes that have been brewing for a long time will begin to settle as the  parties take into consideration how the cases are being resolved and no question that's how it works people will get an idea of what it's likely to be much harder i must tell you  an appeal process because you're you're dealing with two thirds are going to do one third are for you and you don't have any alternative but to go to that process in the first place i'm sure it results in some settlements as well so it may be that is even though we're looking at very large numbers of potential cases right now that n i didn't begin these hearings with any bias except to the present prophecies of theme i had not in fact serve the public well congress has made a decision for projects up to that up to or over five hundred thousand i'm sorry made a decision mandated decision it's a matter of law so congress is call the question on those projects and we intend to have frequent hearings and to do whatever it takes to make the state and a female adhered to the law that's what that is now we also will be monitoring the contract appeals board which also comes under our g s a jurisdiction and we are prepared to have more frequent hearings and we are prepared to add language mandatory language to our two existing bills or to the appropriation bills if we find matters like we found today that policy matters were making people go to go to appeals when the mandated language was arbitration for matters over five hundred thousand dollars i do not read that theme i had the discretion to say ok if it's a policy matter you go right into the same thing you've been doing for the last four years and if not  then maybe you can go to the arbitrator and by the way we decide who we who are involved in the appeal the side of it is a policy matter way it was i mean what way did you get the idea that the policy matter had to be decided through the appeals process in our in our conversations with our legal staff and them in our office that we would not just in conversations with the federal emergency management agency that the arbitration panel would not be able to overturn fema part that was the view of your legal counsel because in consultation with the most legal count yes ma'am any indications from you know folks from the from both agencies that the that the arbitration panel would only look at construction and estimation type type disputes but you've made it very clear that i'm sure woman that that's not the case in so we will  we will send up some balloons  notwithstanding any other provision of law the president shall establish that a public assistance program to expedite recovery efforts from hurricane names could xena and read are named place named within the gulf coast region observation panel shall have sufficient authority regarding the award or denial of disputed assistance applications for covered hurricane damage under section world three et i do not believe one has to be a lawyer to read the plain language there and i do not see any wiggle room and i am saying to you that whatever policy pronouncements have come from famous have been in violation of the statute on its face and every then in violation of what this committee long ago had said it wanted which was third party intervention in order to haste with coverage on the gulf coast the only words i haven't read is what project the told amount which is more than five hundred thousand dollars  teach i still am a tenured professor of law which was my full time occupation before being elected to congress the georgetown university law center i retain my tenure by teaching a course called law making and statutory interpretation inspired by my experience as an administrator when i was when i was in the clinton and in the carter administration and as a member of congress and seeing how laws can be interpreted very differently from administrative agencies from the courts and from the congress much of it based on poor wording in the statute this is optimal wording in the statute any court getting a matter of this kind i don't suggest that this is the kind of matter that we go to court would have no question in my  judgment in my humble judgment the clarion that the plain words of the statute speak for themselves and they don't even have to look to the legislative history such as the hearings which produced this r proceeds as the statutory language says and unless counsel is able to convince the subcommittee and this committee to the contrary we expect these matters to go to arbitration and based on your good sense common sense notion of what ever the level should be if necessary this subcommittee is a pair to put into the appropriation language as to the amassed and reaffirming mandatory arbitration we leave that to your good offices recognizing that that has not worked in the past but believing that we have been clear enough for you to understand what our intention is today mr farrow thank you madam chair and light of  your clarification's there are a couple of items one i'm pleased that is that you have expressed an interest in addressing projects under the five hundred thousand dollar mark since a community such as ours who would incur enormous amounts of of operational budgetary obligations for those projects it would not be obligated but likewise in terms of  following within the disaster fema releases administrative policies that are non statutory regulations or those also the intent of this committee to be eligible for arbitration for i don't five hundred thousand above at the moment are you talking about well obviously for the mandated legislation but in the discussion under five hundred thousand dollars as well in other words what i'm asking is that the under five hundred thousand we are going by the a d r language is that right where where there would be agreement we don't have i don't have any faith in that process whatsoever so i'm putting things on notice right now we said more than five hundred thousand we understand that that would envelop still a large number i take a large number and and yet there are several there are several that would be over the five hundred thousand many more would be under but again the what we are prepared mr barrow to receive advice from you and sima as to the application of such language for give us the cutoff point and to put language in law since we do not have confidence  contrary so we have no doubt that if you took those under five hundred that and if you asked for them to agree to go to the the process which i could that would be covered we have no confidence that you would ever get there agreement thank you to keep you from going with respect to matters of policy already to the arbitration process even if you were within the amounts so we believe that more clarification is next and we're prepared to do that we're prepared to do it if we don't if we don't get the answers that show us that should not and if we do then we're going to put language again to clarify the law we are not going to sit here and be outraged to hear much as we appreciate that one point two million dollars has proceed d we expected a new administration to take a new view and not to have this tide on its back and we believe that is the view of this administration but if with needs clarification from garrett was there before mr garrett is there now and is on the same thing it was done before you can get clarification but we are not going to have another hearing where it is recited to me that theme or says that there's a power see merit for example of the plain words of the statute it was designed to make sure that for certain projects which ever you said were powerfully and only you get to say that would go up the same chain of command as they went before we think it's unfair and it's not unfair it at least is inefficient and it's contrary to the statute and contrary to our intention i know  the senate as well when i say that i'm sure any language we put in would get the cooperation of the two senators from the state thank you very much this hearing is