INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”
Guest:
David Paulison, Director of FEMA
Reporters:
Chris Strohm CongressDaily and Shaun Waterman, UPI
Moderator: C-SPAN
TAPE DATE: Friday, May 25, 2007
AIR DATE/TIME:
SUNDAY, May 27, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET
Please use with attribution to
C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*
* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network
Please contact
Jennifer Moire in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at
202-626-8797
or jmoire@c-span.org for questions
© NCSC
Copyrighted material: use with attribution only
ROB HARLESTON: Welcome to another edition of newsmakers. Our guest today is David Paulison, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA, and here to question him is Chris Strom of Congress Daily and Sean Waterman of United Press International. Director Paulison, earlier, this week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its forecast for the upcoming hurricane season. They’re calling for 13 to 17 named storms, seven to 10 of them turning into hurricanes, and three of those five hurricanes with destructive winds of up to 111 miles per hour. What has FEMA been doing to get ready for this upcoming hurricane season?
DAVID PAULISON: We are in the middle of the 20 year cycle of a lot of hurricanes, but it only takes one hurricane to give you a really bad day, like we learned in 1992, when Andrew was the only hurricane we had that year. So we’re going to prepare regardless of what the forecasts are. We have very clearly and very carefully looked at those lessons learned out of Katrina, looked very carefully what went wrong, what worked right, and prepared this agency to respond to this year’s storms.
HARLESTON: And we’ll continue the questioning with Chris Strom of Congress Daily.
CHRIS STROHM: Chief, can you talk a little bit about the new structure of the preparedness directorate and the reorganization that has happened. It seems like every year now, FEMA is being reorganized. And what’s the latest reorganization and why does that make the country better to prepare to emergencies.
PAULISON: It sure does seem like it every year, we’re in the middle of these reorganizations, and what we’ve done is – what Congress did is take the preparedness side that was in the Department of Homeland Security and moved it into FEMA. Primarily the preparedness issues, grants, law enforcement grants, we did not have before. Also moved the radiological emergency preparedness program, the chemical stockpile program and a couple of other things back into FEMA.
But what we didn’t do, we just take that preparedness piece and hang it on the (INAUDIBLE). We’ve imbedded inside the entire organization because we’re looking at changing the culture of this organization of how we respond.
STROHM: Let’s get into some specifics. One of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina was that the evacuation plans didn’t work adequately, that especially the impact on poor people and people with disabilities was disproportional. What’s different now?
PAULISON: What’s different now is the planning we’re doing. Not only planning inside the federal government, but working with the state. And if we can look at Louisiana particularly, last year we worked very carefully with them to make sure we had a rock solid evacuation plan in place. We had transportation, system set up. We had buses on contract. In fact, we had over 200 buses standing by with drivers during that whole hurricane season, ambulance contracts in place, visiting each of those facilities that house people with disabilities and people who were immobile making sure they had a plan in place. Can you shelter in place? And if you cannot shelter in place, what is your plan to evacuate those residents prior to a storm coming in?
HARLESTON: Our next question will come from Sean Waterman, United Press International.
WATERMAN: If I could ask about the National Guard, in Kansas we saw the Guard was able to cope, but the adjuvant general there, did say he couldn’t have coped with two of those. I mean a relatively small town, 1200, just 1200 people. Going to be a very tough year. How – is the guard going to be ready? It’s at 50 percent strength?
PAULISON: The guard is ready, but don’t forget we have a system called the emergency management assistance compact, which all 50 states are a member of. In Hurricane Katrina and Louisiana we had National Guard from all 50 states sent into that particular state. So we can surge troops. We can surge equipment from one state to another. And that happens in any disaster. Even in Florida, we have a disaster there, and North Carolina all ready has an agreement. They send a C130 to evacuate hospital patients out of the Florida Keys. So it’s a system that works very well.
So we have the guard that can surge people from one state to another. We can bring the core of engineers in with equipment. We have contracts all ready in place. We have contractors who bring heavy equipment in. So there’s a backup plan. Yes, we are at war. There’s a lot of equipment over there. But the equipment that we use in disasters is primarily still here in this country.
SHAUN WATERMAN: But it – I mean I understand about the emergency, the compact – the assistance compact, but if the whole- if the guard is stretched across the country, which it is, and if you have the possibility, which you do of more than one big major event this hurricane season, are you still confident you could cope under those conditions?
PAULISON: I am. Talking with the guard, the amount of people they have still in this country, the staffing of the Guard bureau and I’m not going to speak for them but, the staffing of the Guard bureau is still up around 80 percent of what they have in the country. What they are missing not to make light of the fact that there is a lot of people over there and a lot of equipment, what they are missing is the war fighter equipment. But the equipment that we use for disasters, heavy trucks and those types of things are still here in this country and are staffed pretty well.
HARLESTON: Chris Strom.
STROHM: I want to press you on the issue of the Guard readiness a little bit. Experts have said, there was testimony on the hill this week, that the Guard readiness level readiness level is only at 50 percent across the country. Do you have an inventory list of what Guard resources would be available to you? You talk about the emergency compact agreement, where you can look to a neighboring state to be able to draw resources, what if there’s nothing to borrow? What if there’s nothing in that state? Do you have an understanding? And is it updated on a regular basis, for what the guard resources are available to you?
PAULISON: We do. The Guard has it. And they have done a chart of every state, what – every hurricane state of what they would do in a category one, category, two, three, four and five, and what the readiness is. In Louisiana particularly, category one, two, and three, there were enough Guards in the state to handle that particular type of disaster. In a four/five they would have to bring resources in from other states. The lined that out, green, yellow and red, you know, exactly with what they’d have to do.
Again, there are a lot of Guard, people in here, and Guard is not the only responders in this country. You know, we have urban search and rescue teams. We have 28 around the country we can bring in. We can surge a lot of people from one state to another, with firefighter and police officers. Coast Guard, particularly can help us with those type of things. I’m comfortable we can respond. Yes there is a lot of guard people over there, again, not to make light of that, but we have backup systems for that.
STROHM: Let me ask you about emergency housing. When you were testifying in the Senate this week, you cited as one of your needs the issue of being able to provide emergency housing, what’s going on with that?
PAULISON: Well we have a lot of people still in travel trailers and mobile homes across the Gulf Coast, about 80,000 families. But we still have a lot of travel trailers, a lot of mobile homes in stock. What we don’t want to do, we don’t want to keep FEMA in the long term housing business, that’s not one of our core competencies. So we’re partnering with the Department of HUD human and urban development, to work with us to take over some of that long term housing. As of September of this year, anyone in an apartment that we’re paying for HUD will take those over and put them into their programs and that’s going to make life much easier for and we’re going to work very hard to get people out of travel trailers and in our group sites, and into some decent housing.
The – don’t forget, we had over a million people evacuate during Hurricane Katrina and Rita and they had to have a place to stay. We found them a place to stay. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t coordinated as it should have been but we did find them a place to stay.
HARLESTON: Sean Waterman.
WATERMAN: If I could move on to the topic of waste, fraud and abuse, in the aftermath of Katrina, as you know, there was quite a lot of that. I think the latest figure from the GAO is two billion. What are you doing to make sure that in future events – after future events, the taxpayer doesn’t get bilked again?
PAULISON: A couple things to deal with that particular issue. Not so much on the fraud, let me talk about the waste piece of it. FEMA did not have in place contracts to deal with the disaster that it had to have and had negotiated those contracts after the storm came through. It did not put them in a good position to do that. You’re not bargaining with the upper hand. So we have put in place, quite a few contracts. So those are in place now, so we don’t have to negotiate those after storm. We can negotiate them now, they’re called readiness contracts, to move people and contractors in when we need them.
The second piece of that is having the prescriptive mission assignments with the rest of the federal agencies. During Katrina, we only have 14 prescripted mission assignments. Last year, we had 44. This year, we have over 180 across 21 agencies for helicopters, for heavy equipment, for whatever we happen to need from the rest of the federal government.
The last piece of that is not being able to verify a person is who they said they are, and did they live where they said they live. We have put an identify verification system in place, where we can very clearly identify that yes, you are who you say you are. You lived where you said you lived and your house was damaged and you do deserve some money from the federal government. So we have those in place.
We also are – our computer system now is a Web based system, so we won’t get the duplicate applications. The computer will stop those from happening. Now if it’s a case of a family that’s been split up, then we can find very clearly, yes we want to get both of those dollars, but it forced us to go back and check before we just automatically issue a check for that.
WATERMAN: On the point of the individual assistance fraud, which there was quite a lot of, I noticed that in terms of the prosecutions there have been following Katrina, they’ve al been, I think for that kind of individual assistance, where we haven’t seen any big procurement fraud cases come out of Katrina. Are there not any, or I mean I know these big cases take a lot of time to put together. What’s your understanding of the situation?
PAULISON: We have not seen a lot of the fraud from contractors. Most of the fraud has been from individuals, sometimes a small contractors and things. And we follow up on everything that we find, and we turn it over to the inspector general for prosecution. We’re not going to tolerate it, we cannot tolerate it, we have to make sure that the public understands, the taxpayers understand we are going to do everything in our power to make sure that money is spent wisely.
ROBB HARLESTON: We’re talking with David Paulison who is the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency nominated by President Bush to serve under the – under Secretary of Federal Emergency Management and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in April 2006.
And, here in the studio with us today are Chris Strohm of Congress Daily, he’s their Homeland Security reporter and Shaun Waterman of the United Press International and he’s the Homeland and National Security Editor. We’re going to continue our questioning with Chris Strohm.
STROHM, HOMELAND SECURITY REPORTER, CONGRESS DAILY: Another issue that came up during Katrina was no-bid contracts, contracts that went out without competition. And, you’ve talked about the need that you had for – under emergency situations where the contracts had to be issued. But, your agency has just informed Congress that there were up to 4,000 contracts that were awarded under without competition. Is this a practice that’s still going on and what are doing about that?
PAULISON: No, we are not doing no-bid contracts. The only type of a contract that we would have that is a no-bid, if we went to tow town (ph) and had to setup a trailer park for – put our trailers on and the trailer site was the only piece in town, yes we would negotiate individually with that owner, that piece of property. But, I do not like no-bid contracts, I don’t think it’s a good way to do business.
Occasionally you have to do those if you’re in an extreme situation where you need something you didn’t plan on having. If we had any no-bid contracts, we have bid most of those back out again. And, as those come to an end, we’re re-bidding those, I want a fair and open competition. We get the best price, the big – the best – the buck – bank for our buck and we get a good solid contract as opposed to having someone who has a no-bid.
STROHM: And I – you had mentioned trailers and I wanted to ask you about the issue of formaldehyde in the trailers, this is something that has been, you know, coming up lately. The Sierra Club estimates based on their testing showed that 83 percent of trailers had formaldehyde levels above the EPA limit of zero point ten parts per million. What’s your response to that criticism?
PAULISON: Well, the criticism is justified as far as yes there is formaldehyde in trailers and travel trailers and mobile homes or any house has formaldehyde. When we found out that we did have high levels of formaldehyde, we brought in the CDC, we brought in other people to test our trailers and tell us how do we mitigate this.
Now, we mitigate it by airing the trailer out, turning the air conditioner on, keeping humidity low and over time it dissipates. We’ve had right around 100 complaints out of 115,000 travel trailers we had put down. We’ve dealt with every one of them. If we could not mitigate that particular trailer, we are changing those trailers out and giving them a new trailer. Also what we’re doing is re-writing our specifications. Mobile homes have guidelines for the amount of formaldehyde that’s allowed, travel trailers did not. Any new travel trailer we buy has to meet the same specification as a new mobile home for the formaldehyde – it’s in that trailer – particular trailer.
So we – we know we had an issue, we’ve been dealing with it for several months now, we are not taking it lightly, we want to make sure that these trailers are safe, we want to make sure that the people are safe. We have now brought in our Chief Medical Officer to look at those reports we had and go back and re-look at it all over again and make sure we’re doing the right thing.
STROHM: So, it’s up to individuals to air out their trailers?
PAULISON: That’s correct. Yes, that, you know, they’re living in the trailers, you know, we can’t go do that for them. And, we’ve contacted every one of them, we’ve given them brochures, here’s what you need to do and it’s usually for people who are sensitive to the formaldehyde. And like I said, we’ve only had around a hundred complaints, that is out of 100,000, over 100,000 trailers we put on the ground.
HARLESTON: Shaun Waterman.
WATERMAN, HOMELAND AND NATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL: Can I ask – you spoke at the beginning of the program about the 20 year cycle. Do you foresee FEMA looking at or concerned at variation in that cycle because of the – because of the climate change?
PAULISON: We’re – again, we’re – the forecast is nice to have but we’re going to continue to prepare for the worst, you know, hope for the best. Because, again, well only hurricane like we had in 1992 when Hurricane Andrew came through can devastate a community. So, we’re going to prepare, I would like to have the forecast, it gives us some idea. But, as far as how we prepare ourselves it does – it really doesn’t make any difference.
HARLESTON: Chris Strohm.
STROHM: Yes. I wanted to ask you about the supplemental spending bill that Congress just approved and is sent to the President, the President’s likely to sign it maybe today while we’re – as we’re taping today. It includes – it includes funding that FEMA is going to distribute to communities, especially communities in Louisiana that are still rebuilding. How quickly can you get that money down to the communities in need and what are you – what else is in the supplemental for you?
PAULISON: Well, we’re going through the supplemental right now and kind of pick it apart and, you know, when it comes in a big chunk and about this thick and to look exactly what dollars are in there, you know, what’s in there for the disaster relief fund, what’s in there for hiring people, I know there’s dollars in it for incentive (ph) management teams to send out quickly into the field. So, we’re going to look at those very clearly and get those dollars out as fast as we can. Again, we’ll wait till the President signs it obviously and then see exactly what’s in that bill and go through it with a fine tooth comb.
STROHM: There isn’t – there is funding, as I understand it, $320 million to basically – to waive the matching requirement that Louisiana communities have to comply with. It would waive that and allow that money directly to assist those communities. How quickly do you think that you’re going to be able to move that money?
PAULISON: Well, most of the money that – the temporary – you’re talking about the ten percent match. We pick up 90 percent of the cost of the – of the public infrastructures we’re rebuilding and the state picks up ten percent. Louisiana has not sent us a lot of this ten percent dollars, so that’s not going to be a significant issue to write a check and reimburse them for what they have, Mississippi has, Mississippi has given us most of their ten percent match. Soon as that money is cleared and we do a spend plan, we can send them a check right away. But, Louisiana has most of those dollars. What that bill did was to tell them they don’t have to pay that ten percent match.
HARLESTON: Shaun Waterman.
WATERMAN: I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the question of all hazards preparedness versus preparedness for terrorism. We talked about the reorganization and I think it’s fair to say that part of that – what’s been driving that is a little bit of a see-saw, you know, between a focus on terrorism and then after Katrina then perhaps the see-saw’s tipped back. Is that a fair …
PAULISON: I don’t know about the see-saw, and I can tell you personally I’m a believer in all hazards, a training all hazards response. We feel like if we plan to respond to a disaster, whatever the cause is – don’t forget a, you know whether an earthquake brought a building down or a terrorist blew the building up, the response is the same. The building may come down differently, you’re generally in an earthquake you have more voys (ph) and more survivors. But, our response is going to be the same. So we’re going to – this agency is going to be an all hazards agency, that’s how we’re going to train, that’s how we’re going to plan, that’s how we’re going to prepare for disasters in this country.
WATERMAN: One other question would be you talked about the grants that are now inside FEMA, historically those have been a sort of some political controversy, the department’s come under a lot of fire for the way it …
PAULISON: I’m shocked you would say that.
WATERMAN: The departments come under a lot of fire, are you looking forward to taking charge of that process?
PAULISON: We know there’s a lot of politics in the grants particularly not so much as how they’re given out, but how they’re received. If you don’t get grants, obviously you’re not happy, if you get the grants, you are happy. We just want to make sure the grants will go to where they’re needed the most, where’s the highest risk, where’s the vulnerabilities and what – where are the grants going to have the biggest impact? And, that’s how we’re going to manage the grants. The Secretary, that’s his philosophy and that’s going to be our philosophy how we do that. We’re going to distribute them as fairly as possible and, you know, if somebody’s unhappy that they’re just not going to be happy.
HARLESTON: Chris Strohm.
STROHM: One of the other issues that came up during Katrina was the sheer magnitude of the disaster wiped out the local infrastructure. And, when it comes to communications it wasn’t an issue so much of interoperability as an issue of operability. How are you prepared to respond if another disaster comes along of that magnitude in terms of establishing communications and radio ability for first responders?
PAULISON: We have done several things – again, those – that’s one of those lessons learned that we picked up. We have purchased a lot of communications equipment. The tornado we just had in Greensburg, Kansas (ph).
We moved very quickly to move in trucks in to setup satellite systems for their cell phones, for (INAUDIBLE) mobile radios for the first responders, communications for the local community to make sure (INAUDIBLE) puts this back in place very quickly. Obviously not as big as a Katrina, but the impact – the resources we have can move in quickly to an area like a Katrina, like a, you know, it happened in New Orleans and help them setup a communication system. We have caches (ph) of handheld radios now that we did not have before, we have the ability to put the live video on the ground similar to what your agencies can do, we didn’t have that capability before.
So yes, we can move in quickly, we can setup communication systems. And also, you know, a lot of the communities now were actually hardening their communication systems, so those towers do stay up and they don’t come down. You know, the ones we put up in Louisiana, Mississippi are hard and they should survive a storm.
STROHM: One of the nightmare scenarios, obviously is a nuclear attack. How – I’m assuming that FEMA has been exercising, looking at the response that will be needed for a nuclear attack. Kind of walk us through what your response would be, and what you do in the case of state and local government being wiped out?
PAULISON: We just had an exercise the last week, or the week before last on that particular scenario, taking a large megaton nuclear device going off in a metropolitan city. And it exercised everyone from the Department of Defense, North Com, us, you know, HHS, HUD, everyone who would have a play in a particular instant like that. And making some very clear lessons learned on how we’re going to respond. Tough decisions you’re going to have to make of when do you go in and when you don’t go in. What are you going to do with the first responders? You know, how do you protect them, because you don’t want to get them in harm’s way either. And so we tested all of these systems, and got some very good lessons out of that exercise which is a week long exercise.
Now, FEMA’s role is going to be similar to what we do in any type of disaster. You talk about all hazards. You know, we’re going to be providing the equipment, the communications equipment we have, the food, the water, helping with sheltering, and working with other – coordinate other agencies to respond to a disaster like that.
HARLESTON: Sean Waterman.
SEAN WATERMAN: If I could just go back to the question of the grants, and press you a little bit on that. I – obviously people that don’t’ get the money are unhappy about that. But one of the, I think, one of the ways the department can insulate itself against this is more transparency in the process. It’s tough because some of this stuff is based on intelligence about terrorist intentions, but can you get more transparency into the process, to show the people why didn’t get the money?
PAULISON: I think our grant guidance helps with that a lot, and I understand exactly what you’re saying. You know, why didn’t I get a grant? And I’ll give you a couple of examples? We had a couple of ports, with the port security grants, they did not get near the amount of money they got last year. I’ll pick on one, I’m familiar with the Port of Miami. Some of their projects that they put in there did not meet any of the grant guidance, so they did not get funded. But the clearer we make the grant guidance, the more transparent that is, of how we’re making our decisions, and how we’re going to weigh those, will alleviate a lot of the things you talked about. And that’s what we want, we want to be as open and fair as we can. We want the people to see what are the criteria for applying for the grant? What are our priorities? And how does your project meet those particular priorities? And I think that’s going to be pretty open, in fact, I know it’s going to be pretty open.
HARLESTON: Chris Strom.
STROHM: You’re on the edge of the beginning of the hurricane season, but you still don’t have the new national response plan. When is that plan going to be issued? And what’s going to be different about this new plan?
PAULISON: First of all the – we have a national response plan in place. We did update it last year. And the basic premise of that plan is going to stay even with the new plan coming out. So if you take to any state emergency manager, they know exactly what the rules are and they know exactly how they’re going to response and how we’re going to fit together. So not having that new plan out now, is really not going to have an impact. But the existing national response plan is too thick, it’s too bulky, it’s too cumbersome. We want to make it more user friendly. We want to make it, there’s a tab for governor, there’s a tab for a local emergency manager, there’s a tab for first responder, and what your responsibilities are, and how you fit into this plan, and that’s what we’re working to know.
We have people actually working all weekend. We want to get the plan out by July one, if we can, hopefully before then, but working very hard on it to make sure we do it out, but the basic plan of how we respond and how we mesh together, is not any different than what it has been in the past.
STROHM: And you and Secretary Chertoff have both said that the federal government can’t be responsible for everything. FEMA is only a relatively small agency of 2500 employees, so you need to rely on state and local governments. How do you feel, what’s your assessment of the readiness levels and capabilities of the state and local governments at this point?
PAULISON: I think Katrina was a wakeup call. If you talk to emergency managers around the country it was a wakeup for all of them, all of us, in fact, asking what if that was my state, what if that was my city, or if that was my community. What would have I have been – how would have I performed? And I see a lot of soul searching and going back – looking at their plans, making sure that they have those transportation plans in place, they have their evacuation plans in place. Are my shelters ready? How am I going to get people there? Who’s going to staff them? You know, all of those types of things that we saw that we went wrong, inside of Katrina.
We’ve also been doing a GAAP analysis of all of the hurricane states, from Texas all the way to Maine. The city of New York put together a huge 300-some-odd page disaster plan for New York. And Joe Bruno (ph) up there has been working with us to put together a gap analysis plan for the rest of the states. And we’ve been working with them to do that. So we can get a no kidding assessment of exactly where we are. So we can tailor our response to a particular state, because one size does not fit all. Every state’s capability is different. The gaps are going to be different. And we want to be able to do that. So if we have a disaster move in to a state, we know exactly what those issues are and we know what to start rolling sometimes even before the governor asks for equipment, because we know what the gaps all ready are. So that’s what we’re doing. And that’s – I’m pretty comfortable the states are understanding what the issues are.
And if I can just take a few more seconds, the big concern that I have is personal preparedness, is our population in this country, our residence are not taking seriously their need to take care of themselves and their families for the first 72 hours. We saw it in Hurricane Wilma, and my home state of Florida, and down in South Florida, you know, it went over the top of my house, and I lost roof tiles and trees, but the houses were standing. In Dade County, particularly they had tap water, people, tens of thousands of people were standing in line for food and water and ice, when they should have prepared themselves, when they didn’t have to do that.
STROHM: Well on the flip side of that coin is when the federal government needs to move in and essentially take over the response operations. Congress amended the insurrection act last year giving the federal government the ability to deploy active duty military for natural disasters and terrorist incidents. At what point, do you make the decision to bypass a state’s authority and take over the operation.
PAULISON: That would have to be something really, really significant. That call lies with the President of the United States, not with me. However, even if we move active duty troops in, you know, unless it’s something extreme, we invoke the insurrection act, but your title 10 active duty troops or title 32 national guards, the national guards are going to call into the control of the governor. Nobody wants to come in and take over unless it’s something totally catastrophic, that like you said, devastates the state’s ability to respond.
The response belongs to the local community and the state is backing them up. But what we don’t want to happen –what we don’t want to happen is the sequential failure that we set up in this country over the last 30 years, where we wait for a local government to become overwhelmed before the state steps in, and we wait for the state to become overwhelmed before the federal government steps in. That does not work. We’ve got to change the paradigm where we’re going as partners, working side by side, so we can fill those gaps before those types of things. And if we do that, we’re going to have a much better response to disasters than we’ve every seen.
HARLESTON: We’re running out of time, but we do have one – some time for a quick question from Sean Waterman.
SEAN WATERMAN: Just following on that, are you happy that the lines are all clear now in terms of command and control? I mean do you have the principle federal official, now, again, because of the legal changes last year. Are you happy the command and control is clear?
PAULISON: I’m very comfortable with it. What I’m most happy about is the fact that we’re using a system called unified command where we’re sharing information. That did not happen in Katrina. That was the biggest failure that I saw, was not having the ability to share information with the local and the state community and the federal government and inside all of our agencies together. We worked very hard the first seven months after I took over to put a unified command system in place, something we’ve used in a first responder role for the last 25 years. And that system we’ve tested – in every – even the small disasters worked very well. That’s going to give us the command system we need, and that’s what’s going to make it work.
HARLESTON: Director Paulison, thank you for being on this edition of Newsmakers.
PAULISON: Thank you, sir.