>> i think there are many people, many thousands of people who f. filed with the gccf and filed with the court as well. >> wind you believe that prescriptive period actually ends? in louisiana that would be a tort clai, is that correct? >> again the statute of limitations i don't know what the period period is in louisiana. >> in louisiana it would be one year but my question to you is in your legal analysis, with that period have expired already because -- >> no. anyone who presents their claim i think under the oil pollution control act and i'm not an expert, but i think ultimately they preserve their right to file a claim in federal court. >> and so the period when they come to you in the fund, q. say give say that the prescriptive period is the timing is suspended? >> eitheruspended or extended so that they are not going to be

precluded from filing but again i want to emphasize i'm not an expert in how you litigate federal oil pollution cases. >> mr. chairman toomey that is the biggest concern is that there are people out there that as they try to navigate their way through the complex legal system and what i think is somewhat of a complex application to the bp funded mr. feinberg administers is that time is moving against them and i would hate to see hat at the end of the day, and i know mr. feinberg would not set up a system by which claimants would or just drag on and on and on to the point where we get to the point where they lose their right to court, but only because they have done what he and bp and the a lot of us have asked through that process. so that is a concern mr. chairman. i yield back. >> you have 22 seconds. >> i ield the balance of my

time. >> next when the gavel dropped we had a onmember the committee here and i'm going to recognize him, mr. bonner, for five minutes. >> thank you chairman for allowing me to be a member of the committee. i voice wanted to be and i'm glad to fulfill that promise today. for the record, as has been noted i've had an opportunity to have a lot of experience with mr. feinberg and, while there has been effusive trays and at times even sympathy for the task he has been assigned, i would provide everyone that mr. feinberg -- $1.4 million a month. >> 1.250. i just lop top 150,000. >> regardless it is a generous amount of money to administer, and while it is sick obligated process i think mr. feinberg is realized it is ev more

competition than the 9/11 project in many ways with 1 million claimants. it is not a perfect system. if anything, it is a very -- in so many promises have been made mr. feinberg himself to people who live along the gulf coast not just in alabama but louisna, mississippi, florida and texas. so many broken promises and foresight so i'm grateful for the opportunity to be here but i will obviously have our questions han will be time for and i would lie to ask and i mentioned to this to the chairman. if mr. feinberg has no objection i would like to invite the people who live along the gulf coast to take advantage of this time where we traditionally have five days for additional questions for the record that mr. feinberg would respond to. i would like t get people who live in alabama chance to have met with me before and who were promised certain things and they didn't get those promises fulfilled, would you have any objection to letting us get those questions submitted to

you? >> no, i would welcome it. >> thank you. a couple of questions. vice president biden said the $20 billion is a floor, not a ceili. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> t's just rounded up, $6 billion. how much do you think before august the 2013, based on the trends you have seen thus far, how much you think you will exhaust? >> i would be reluctant congressman to take an estimate of that, but i remind you as you know, that $20 billion is used for purposes other than the gulf coast claims facility. local cleanup costs come out of the 20 billion, government claims that are being paid in alabama by bp comes out of the 20 billion. so ian't venture a guess as to how much the total amount will be that will be spent. i would like to think that the

20 billion would be adequate to compensate eligible claims, but bp has made it clear that if 20 billion is not enough, they will honor all additional financial obligations. >> you also indicated that you were independent of bp. your quote in july 2010, i work with the people of the gulf region. i am totally independent although the federal judge has now questioned that. i want to try to maximize as much compensation as i can fair and constently to the people i'm trying to serve down there. do you still stand by that statement? >> i do, and a. >> but does bp not have the final say of these large settlement claims? do they not have to approve or disallow? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. what bp can do under the protocol, if it so desires for claims that are over -- overpaid

by the gccf and amounts of $500,000, they have the right to seek to appeal if they want to a three-judge panel that was set up not by me, but was set up to review the cla. bp to my knowledge has exercised that right in one single case. >> well, that is not the information we have received but we will take that up separately. u. of also indicated in an answer to an earlier question that there is basically 1% of the claims that are fraudulent. is that right? >> we have received i think i have got this. we have received what we think are 14,000 raw chile claims and we have sent 2800 to the department of justice. >> regardless, data we got from your own web site, the auditor and accounted in my disrict has collected every day to compare shows that 116,000 of the 331,560 claims processed have

been refused payment which would mean 35% of the claims have been refused payment. according to your date are you stating that 35% of those that have been refused payment or because of fraud? >> n not at all. if we have refuse claims, could be for a number of reasons, no documentation, insufficient documentation, ineligible. it might be a claim from idaho, i don't know. i am just throwing this out. government claims are ineligible. moratorium claims are of coue ineligible. there are all sorts of reasons that we either denied claims or dean claims to be deficient. >> thank yo mr. chair. ..

we received more claims in a week than we received in the entire life of the 9/11 victim compensation fund. -year-old and a 2 of the claims will result in some inconsistency. it is inevitable. what we do when we find in consistency, either we find on our own or the claimant bring that to our attention or the client's account or lawyers bring it to our attention. we will look at it.

if we made a mistake, if it is inconsistent we will pay the difference. we are not looking to promote inconsistency. it is a problem we don't want to have magnified. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. i have a few more questions. according to data collected from your web site everyday and analyzed individually by the medical doctor and city officials in alabama, 95% of the claims that have been processed and reviewed, 54% have been processed issued for final payment, 46% have not received final payment. 69% paid of the quick paid for a variety that require no additional documentation to process. 3% pay for the final payment.

i throw those numbers out because basically you would lead to believe that this has been a success because so many people apply. 2,000 we continue to apply and yet is it not true that the burden you have placed on many of these individuals and businesses for additional requests for information even when they submitted their claims with certified accountant and shown the documentation, that there has been great inconsistency in the payment process and more people were not paid and have been paid. >> i don't think there has been great inconsistency. that is why you are promoting the notion of the independent audit to get some answers to that question. i think the people that take a quick payment take a quick payment because they don't have any additional documentation to show or have already been

adequately paid during the emergency payment period. i point with pde to the fact that overall almost $6 billion have gone out in one year. we are doing something right. when you say people are applying 2200 new claims a week because they are being tricked or deceive i don't think that is the case. they see their next-door neighbor getting paid and they file a claim and make the same argument and hope they get paid as well. >> you mentioned audit. i contacted you in the spring of last year and asked you to initiate an audit on your own and i don'tbelieve the qadfi agreed to do that. we had the appropriation bill demanding an audit requiring the

justice department to do it because the assistant attorney general who came to our district realized this was not adding up as intended and even the attorney general when he was along the gulf coast earlier this year, then contacted mr. feinberg and said an audit is necessary. this has not begun yet. they are not even named to do the audit. >> that is correct. i just want to say i don't speak for the department. the departmt will choose the auditor and move your demand. i want to point out the independent audit it is my understanding. i mentioned this earlier. on the one hand there is a demand for dartment move forward with great speed to get this over do. on the other hand the department as i understand it from letters, copies of which i get, there are

various public interest groups, lawyers, elected officials who want input into that process and some of them in the last few weeks got to the department with their suggestions so the tension between speed and inclusiveness is partly the reason there has been a delay in your view. thank you. >> we have less thanen minutes to vote. if you look at the number of people that haven't voted we have more time thanhat. i will recognize mr. whitman. this will be the last question and then weill recess. the time of getting back here is approximately 11:30. we only have a half-hour or so. for those of you that want to engage please get back here after last te. you are recognized for five minutes. >> mr. feinberg, i want to followp on dr. fleming's assertion about the worst

industry in louisiana. as you know the united states this year be its shallow oysters and interconnected processors in one state rely on harvesters and dealers in other states to have their market needs met in those areas. the mid-atlantic is part of that. you heard this nonsense about west coast also. in that vein there are pressors out there that have these relationships with producers that have contracts that have to deliver a certain number of wasters. in thirealm of you considering claims, is it reasonable to consider a claim from somebody that processes wasters in virginia that relies on those oysters from the gulf as a legitimate claim under your process? >> absolutely. if there is a direct lin between virginia oyster processg company that depends

its livelihood on gulf coast shrimp by l means i can go back and see but i am sure we paid some of tse claims. in maryland we are paid a couple of oyster restaurants that we paid that were dependent on gulf shrimp for their livelihood. we say that the seafood industry is interconnected with shrimp and oysters and in some instances even fish. to make sure you are keeping in mind the impact of secondary impact on states and producers is critical. i would like to yield the balance of my time. >> thank you for allowing me to sit in today. mr feinberg, i sharehe same frustration as other gulf state colleagues have expressed from bonner to congressman landry. we are frustrated. we are tired.

many of us feel hopeless in the whole process. we also feel in salted. we have some very smart people. we have accountants and lawyers trying to help people along the gulf coast provide claims and support and documentation. as they do it they feel like they are given the best information, the claim center once and is still reject it or there are delays in processing so the comment congressman landry made is stonewalleding to drag it out or not pay out the $20 billion which was supposed to be the 4. not the ceiling on making sure those effected by the worst man-made disastein our nation's history hold again. but people don't feel like they see inconsistency. they- a perfect example is omega protein. a large company that got a $45 million pay out in their

first year and when you have shrimpers and charter boat captains and others who have made a living for generations off of the gulf coast have yet to receive a first payment or payments being offered or insulting and embarrassing and leaves them with the option to take what they c, cut their losses or go to litigation. people in mississippi litigation is the last thing we really like to go to suppose some people will go to it. the main thing is i am expressing what south mississippi and my colleagues all along the gulf states, this is what we are seeing and feeling. going forward, you have $14 billion left. give these people -- you are going to send out a massive bailout. if you have your paperwork come in and keep communicating that

to the public and letting people know they can receive reimbursements or they have the right to come in and do a claim. also listen to the people who have made living out of the gulf war made a living the fifth court six or 7 generations if your methodogy for reimbursement is not acceptable to them try to come in and find common ground. find that place because these are the experts. i don't expect you to know how to reimburse. you probably have an idea but that is not what you are doing especially going to the cities and municipalities that is not in your range but you have been on ground zero for a long time. the methodology being offered cities and municipalities are in solving. the city was offered $79,000. may be $79 million would be acceptable. $1 per resident. i share the same concern as my

colleagues. i appreciate the chairman allowing me to come in. please take that home and make it right. >> i thank the gentleman. for quick question. i am sympathetic to mr. landry on this shrimping question. the question of how we deal with these fishermen. this is a huge unprecedented science experiments that took place with bp dumping all the chemicals in with the oil and now we're seeing the worst shrimping in 40 ars. if it continues past 2013 my understanding is after 2013 all the money goes back to bp. do you have a recommendation to us in terms of how to handle an issue like that given that the science might be pointing to longer-term economic catastrophe

brought to shrimpers and that the funds in 2013 -- do you have any words of wisdom how we should handle it? >> i would say two things. one is what happens after august of 2013 is a subject that the congress should raise with bp and are suppose the administration which is part of that escrow agreement. as you pointed out, congressman, this is a rather unprecedented situation. bp in putting up as you pointed out this $20 billion is a rather unique contribution by a private corporation to try to create a system that is not requed by existing law. i think bp deserve some cred. >> i agiving them credit. i did that in the opening statement. it is only what happens given the fact that there is a causal connection between what bp did and what could continue to be happening in the gulf in

2013-14-15 in terms of ensuring there is some capacity to compensate people of the hardest occurring in a significant way particularly for the fishermen. >> one option would be if bp ones to extend the deadline of the program past august of 2013 or the foreseeable future that is something congress might raise directly with bp. >> we are going to break and i will simply sarah reference this in my opening statement simply this is unprecedented and repeated several times but the fact this initiative did come from this administration without any semblance of oversight is somewhat problematic and this is maybe an experience of something in progress. we will have to see how it works. we are getting close to votes. mr. feinberg, we anticipate the votes will be done at 11:30 and

we will reconvene at that time. please stand for recess. [silence] [silence] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudle conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> usually what we do is post it

on the web site and invite comment. [inaudible conversations] >> everywhere i turn the shrimpers -- the elected officials are concerned particularly about the future of what shrimp harvesting in louisiana area, that is where we're hearing the mo. it is rather unanimous. we have always said in the gulf coast facility that we will monitor events and reserve the right to modify our methodology as we learn more about what is going on in the gulf and this is an example of the committee. something to be said here about doing something about the shrimp industry. >> have they not been fairly compensated? >> i think they have been fairly compensated and a problem is we are hearing now in 2011 that

what we have seen in the way of harvesting is problemic. >> in regards to the independent audit, you expressed support of doing that. does congress have to approve that? i am sorry if this is a question from someone who has not been following this closely but has this been stted or is there any idea -- >> i am waiting for the top of the justice's decision as far as to how -- it is the department's call. >> are you expecting that? >> if you are a shrimper that except a final payment can reapply? >> you thought was the right thing to do you released it. >> the shrimpers -- >> that is one of the problems. i want more from prison the syem.

>> leftor money from 2013, this money left over to congress to deal with. >> leftover money in the congress is congress's. >> the administration and bp signed and escrow agreement. money that is not extended congress. >> i would have nothing to do with that. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the chairman notes we have a quorum and will resume. we thank you, mr feinberg for hang in with us. we are back in session. i believe mr. sutherland, you are up for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. feinberg, thank you for coming up. i have some questions i called you several months ago and you were kind enough to discuss my concerns on the phone. some of -- some follow-up on the dialogue -- can you hear me ok? okay. i want to ask as far as determining how do you determine

loss based on the documentation that you have required and should require in order to pay a fair claim to restore the damage small-businesses have incurred. talk to me for a moment about what your examiners look at as far as how far you go back and if someone asked you this question i apologize. addresses that for a moment for me. >> we will look, congressman, to income statement, wage statement free still. we will go back and look before the spill in 2009. will look at the beginning of 2010. inappropriate cases 2008. we will try to get a composite picture. what was this small business doing before the spill. what did the trend look like. how were they doing?

what does it look like toast still? sometimes a business will say be careful. that was during katrina and that is a bad example and we will take that into account. we try to come up with a fair picture pre-post. >> if i may address that little deeper. are live in panama city, florida. one of the larger coastal communities along the gulf coast. we had a significant event that occurred in the history of not just our county but our region. we opened our brand new airport in bay county just a month or so prior to the oil spill. the reason i bring this up is that was done in 2010. the ten years preceding that as

you can imagine, incredible effort to get this project done. there has not been an airport built from scratch since denver. it was a pretty big deal. we have bounced back and we have bounced back soundly. 2011, taxes were great, businesses were starting to recover and really had a wonderful year. i could make an argument that you have to factor in 2009 and 2011 if you are going to determine what 2010 would have been like with that significant event. what we have done in securing other airlines into that airport, delta and southwest, airlines we never enjoyed, i can make a pretty good argument that if you just look backwards and not forward then the small businesses that will file those claims will not have the benefit

of the doubt of recovering a fair and equitable amount of money. >> these small businesses out to have you representing them. we welcome that type of dialogue to try and get before the gccf, to try and get a good, fair composite picture. let me just say it sounds to me that is probably if it is an airport damage claim it is probably a government claim. if the airport can show it lost revenue because of the spill because people didn't fly in because of fear of the spill that sound like a government claim that i wouldn't handle. >> we have been meeting with bp representatives regarding government claims and that is another effort for the office. i want to say that our small businesses can have especially around the geographical area of the airport, it's served

multiple counties. i have walton -- i am pleased to hear you say that. >> if you want to convene that group or you want me to meet with a group that can explain the situation and make sure we do it the right way i will respond immediately to your suggestion. >> we will do our homework and try to gather those individuals that have that concern and reach out to your office. you will hear from me. i yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. you have one more question? >> mr. landry retains -- [inaudible] >> mr. landry, you are up for five minutes. >> i want to go back and clarify

a couple things. i noticed directly your responsibility but going to the moratorium, that fund is being closed off. is that correct? you have -- >> until i heard this morning the representation that was closed off i didn't know it was closed off. i doubt that it is closed off but i don't know. i have enough problems of my own with the gccf. >> the problem i am having is to me it concerns me because i believe the oil and gas companies and fishermen and everyone else, the moratorium was a direct impact from the spill. so there are a lot of businesses directly tied to the oil and gas industry or indirectly tied to the oil and gas industry have been impacted that were impacted by the moratorium and i am concerned that they are not

getting paid as well. i visited an oil and gas company, business is down 75% and yet when they send their information over all of their accounting information, they were denied. that falls into or dovetails into another problem that mr. bonner alluded to. i am hearing across the gulf coast from people who applied to your fund that when they check in, when a claimant checks in and says where are we? we lost some paperwork. could you resubmit this? could you resend this to us? what i am telling you is is too coincidental that the person in louisiana is having the same problem as the person in mobile or pensacola when it comes to

the gccf losing their paperwork. it doesn't happen that coincidental. i know that you have set up in louisiana the long law firms that assist people in trying to put their paperwork together and that helps as well. but it just seems like the process is taking away, wade too long. >> three and his. one. there is no misunderstanding here. i share your concern over the moratorium claims. i wish i could pay those claims. i have no jurisdiction from day one. you are preaching to the choir. i think have 1600 claims that are would like to pay and i can't. >> do you move those to the other fund? >> are move them to the other

fund that as far as i can tell it has shown no inclination in paying these claims because -- has congressman holt pointed out an hour ago even if the memorial fund will pay some of those as he cited, they will not broaden it sufficiently so are amish sharing that view. second, we are not losing any paper. when we started congressman landry, when we spoke over for bp last summer into the early fall paying the emergency payments, transitioning from bp paid acclaims over to the gccf taking over, then we did but the idea that we processed 95% of the claims, the idea that we're losing paper. i don't buy that. >> i don't believe people in the

district are being disingenuous as well. of course i have seen a lot of times when we're being told in washington and with you being told in boston is different from exactly what goes on to the ground. i would just put in a request that we look for it in both -- with mr. holt and mr. marky and chairman hastings that we look somewhere in between. maybe we will split the difference between florida and louisiana. feinberg, if you would come with us and we could hear directly from before we put you up, we will give you the benefit of the doubt and put them up and listen to them and bring you on and somewhere in the middle we will find what the truth is. >> i have received since we took over last august sixty million

pieces of paper. it is conceivable. i would suggest if there are particular constituents who claim lost the arguments you get me their name and claim number i will personally get back to you with the status board of those claimants who claim losses documentation. the other thing i want to mention before you depart, i checked during the break and i have an answer for you. if somebody files their claim with the gccf, they are protected by the federal statute of limitations. >> thank you so much. that is important. thank you so much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. next is mr. holt for five minutes. >> thank you again for the work you are doing and no one here is surprise you are a good witness and very forthcoming.

we appreciate that. to some extent following what mr. landry was talking about, if there is money remaining in the fund that hasn't been extended by 2013, what happens to it? do you happen to know although it is not your responsibility, what about the moratorium relief fund? this baton rouge foundation fund? what happens to that money? does it go back to bp? if so, what are the safeguards built into the system to prevent what would you call it? an intentional tendency not to give it out? >> you ask the same tough questions you did when we were doing the 9/11 fund and i thank you again for what you did ten

years ago. ten years ago to get those new jersey constituents to understand how of the 9/11 fund worked. during the break i checked on this because i wanted to make sure i am accurate. in august of 2013 when the gccf was ready to close by agreement between the administration and bp there are three independent trustees in charge of the overall escrow, $20 billion. if those trustees conclude that there are more than $1 billion worth of claims that appear to be outstanding even though they are beyond 2013 they have the power to keep the fund open and every six months those trustees will review the state of the claims. only if the total claims fall

under $1 billion will that money then revert back to bp. so the independent trustees have some say. on the one hundred million dollar moratorium fund my understanding is that is forever gone from bp's dominion. they have no control over it. where the $100 million is used for $20 million is used, that money is going to be distributed by the trustees administering that fund. that money will not go back to bp has are understand it. finally if anybody in my day to day administration feels that i am not spending the money the way i should, that a claimants feel they are not being paid adequately they have the right to check their claims to the united states coastguard and

have the coastguard do an independent review of how our rules on their claim, 1500 people have done that and the coast guard has agreed with the gccf every single time so far. >> thank you. just to be clear, to whom the money would return if there was money left over,

keep alive your function? >> i think they could. bp would technically need the support of the united states government to do it but that is up to b p. i must say as congressman markey whatever criticism one wants to level at bp i know of no case in history, i can't think of one where a company voluntarily put up $20 billion to resolve claims. i think the criticism ought to be tempered by the fact that this is a rather extraordinary -- i think the administration just as the bush administration was able to promulgate this 9/11 victim compensation fund ten years ago i think the administration in getting bp to do this was a major positive step. >> thank you. with the chair's indulgence for 15 seconds the reason i am

following this line of questions, the shrimping grounds, that looks as if there will be hard times for years to come. we want to make sure people aren't left out so to speak in the cold. a fairly warm climate but you get my point. the shrimping industry and perhaps others look like they will be hard hit for a long time. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair notes we're up against a hard time soon and it is going to work out perfectly because we only have one of your questionnaire. my colleague from louisiana has five minute and that should get us out right on time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the courtesy of the committee to allow me to participate and i think mr. feinberg for coming and have a few questions in five minutes.

when we talk about the trustees, who appointed the two trustees? >> i have enough problems. i am not sure how those trustees were appointed pursuant to the escrow agreement. was between the administration and bp. >> we will try out specifically how that came about. when we talk about the agreement between the administration and bp an earlier question by mr. landry who ask about issues related to the moratorium. people who have not gone back to work because of the lack of timely issuance of permits and you said if you can't pay those is there something in the agreement between bp and the administration? >> when the gulf coast claims facility was established it was understood whether it is in writing or an agreement between the administration and bp or bp unilaterally declared this

before bringing me on board that the moratorium claims would not be part of my jurisdiction or with government claims be part of my jurisdiction. >> a few months ago i asked you for detailed information and broken down metrics on claims paid out and claims rejected. i was able to get some of the information on claims paid out of the right didn't get it broken-down by state and region and that was one of those things i requested. i would like to ask about that and we were not able to get information on claims that had been rejected. >> i have your staff take a look at attachment b on my testimony today which breaks out the overall statistics by state including the we see an and under louisiana how much has been paid out and how many denied and accepted and how much paid out. >> do we have that by industry so we want to go into seafood processors?

that is my next question. >> i can get you that. don't even send me a letter. have your staff e-mail me and i will get you that information. i do know that approximately as of the middle of this month $1 billion in the aggregate has been paid to the seafood industry but i can get you more information. >> i am sure the e-mail has gone out but the specific request we want to know within the seafood industry how is it broken down by region and if you give it at the state level but if possible even at the local level. >> i will try to get that to you. >> the complaints we are getting from some shrimpers that have processing facilities and some brought more people in advance of the macondo well explosion and had severe layoffs, still

dealing with severe problems from the industry not coming back. you met with a few individually and they have not been an answer. can you tell me what the holdup is with shrimp processors? may be just southeast louisiana. other colleagues might experience along the gulf coast too. >> we have processed and paid plenty. i can get you the numbers as you requested. from processors and harvesters and the shrimp industry but you are absolutely on to something here. earlier i mentioned this. up and down the gulf as you know to your district it is clear that the gccf has to be more responsive to the shrimpers. there are a lot of shrimpers that haven't filed a claim yes with the gccf because they are watching and waiting to see how the gccf will treat the shrimp industry. you have been very constructive and very vocal with me about the need to do something about those

shrimpers. we will in a matter of weeks take another look at how we deal with the shrimpers but i assure you that your concern about the shrimpers is not going unnoticed. we are going to try to find a way to be more generous towards the shrimpers in louisiana. >> i will continue to work with you because there are a few specific shrimp processing processors who filed a formal paperwork with gccf and have not gotten an answer yet. i will push to make sure we get those results that may provoke others to get involved. only a couple seconds left so i will give a plug for the restore act because this is a separate issue not in your shop but all five gulf coast state of come together in the house and filed legislation a few weeks ago that would dedicate 80% of the finds bp have in the water act to allow us to restore environmental and economic damage not covered by your

operation that we may have for years to come. >> if you can get me the name of those shrimper's i will look at those. no one is a more constructive critic than you. i hope to continue to work with you. your people have been very forthright and i appreciate your concern. >> that will be included in the e-mail. the other one went out but i appreciate your coming before our committee and appreciate the chairman and members for their discretion and allow me to ask questions. >> the gentleman yield back. mr. feinberg, we have one more member who has appeared in an effort to be as fair as possible to both sides if you indulge one more question her i would appreciate that. i now recognize miss lee from texas. >> i thank you for your kindness and i will be pointed. i am an interested neighbor who

has worked with your constituents because of my role in the homeland security committee and my familiarity with the or original work mr. feinberg was assigned to and i thank him for that. and however, express i am likewise a boy scout serving on the boy scout board having a husband boy scout and a son boy scout so i am an unhappy camper. i would like to ask how much of the money have you spent of the $20 billion? >> we have authorized about $6 billion. >> the life of this fund you have a period of time? >> august of 2013. >> i am disappointed that the pace when asking whether or not you heard the discussion of

shrimp -- shrimpers and i did not know if i came in too late to listen about the oyster men. have you engaged with the oyster blue -- men? >> we created a methodology to take into account oyster men concerns. >> as you know i have attempted to meet with you. it has been frustrating and i would like to make a request to meet with u.s. and as possible in my office. who should we reach out to to get that done? >> i will get in touch with you in the next day or so to set a date. i will be in houston monday, tuesday and wednesday. one of those dates, november 28th through 30 i am working with congressman green of accused and to get community leaders together in houston and i will be glad to meet with you as well. >> if we can work on that i

would -- we are in different jurisdictions. there is a group led by dr. william s.. i would like to ensure you meet with her. i may ask her to come to houston for the meeting or how we can arrange that meeting and so we will work together on that. let me just proceed with line of reasoning. one of the points as you well know that is may be played the shrimpers people will be oyster persons and others is the documentation questions and that is a challenging question about individuals working in a different kind of work and not having the documentation. how are you responding to that? they still exist? there's the issue of collateral damage. how are you dealing with that? >> we work with these claimants to try to come up with proof,

some proof that their claim is linked to the spill and they can show some damage. i don't need -- as you know from my 9/11 work -- i don't need a full panoply of tax returns and profit and loss statements that a minimal amount of documentation and we continue to work with claimants in trying to get the bare minimum that will allow us to pay damage. >> we will meet with some of those you may be able to give them courage or encouragement because you may say what they already have. the reason i know some communities, i see dick gregory -- have not reached out because they are intimidated by the process. you got $15 billion left. we were talking about 2013.

that is a long road for somebody to have their doors closed. the reason i came to this hearing is to indicate my region is impacted as well. i lived through not only the bp oil spill but hurricane katrina and rita. that is not your responsibility but there are those who can connect present status to this incident that occurred. we want to make sure these funds that rebuild communities, so as i close respecting the time you have to leave we need to reconstruct or have some of your staff work with these community organizations so they can present documentation to be compensated. >> i completely agree. >> i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. i thank the gentlelady and also thank you so much bleaker turtle mr. feinberg for appearing. thank you for holding over. you are obviously a very sincere

person, very candid and doing the best job possible and we appreciate that in louisiana, texas, mississippi, alabama, of the state that are affected. with that members of the committee may have additional questions for the record and i ask you respond to these in writing. if there is no further business without objection the committee stands adjourned. [silence] [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this is what is happening today on c-span 2. the urban institute will host a discussion on how the current economic downturn is affecting the lives of children. live coverage begins at noon eastern. later this evening, vice president joe biden will be the keynote speaker at the florida democratic party convention in orlando. we will have live coverage of this road to the white house event starting at 7:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span 2. >> although this headline proved false, the defeat of thomas dewey had impact. tonight on the contenders, followed the career of thomas e. dewey, a dominant force in new

york politics as governor and in closing -- and influence in national politics. "the contenders" live from the roosevelt hotel in new york city tonight. >> in a few moments, your calls, e-mails and today's news on "washington journal." the libyan ambassador to the u.s. will talk about the death of moammar khaddafi and that political transition taking place in libya at two o'clock 4 in 45 minutes, the chairman of the house transportation committee, john mica, will talk about transportation spending and budget cut negotiations. former vermont gov. howard dean who ran for president in 2004 will give his take on the 2012 campaign. after that, it roundtable this session on agricultural issues. cynthia clark of the usda and bob young of the american farm bureau association joins us. "washito