>>seomthey're no >>livan: yeah.e head of build it b is amy peterson. ofomt i a ot far afr here where build it back spent $6,000 to raise a house. does that make af to you? so at's a gex because i know the home you're lkg out. at's a good example of kindlearni ao sometimes when you start to e a start to tad the say the home, you realize there's a lotrl ha to happen, and so we have fad those ations. the work that we're doing moving d, mch but it costs meyo build elevated homes within kind o est it lioeos $600,000? e're looking at all of the s aoura and trying to figure out st to do this. >>va othe streets of staten ndul the challenges with rebuilding in these increasingly risky ea some heowners had hagh you live here? >> i used to. ul ted your house? y >> sullivan: after sandy d d vi >> yeah. sn:u you're coming back? >> n >> sullivan: you're done. ie. i want to pay off the mortgage. t know if build it back going to buy o'm seg a e . >> slin: some homeow were content keeping things e ey >> they want to give us money to

chairman. 2014, livan, in march of an e.p.a. employee was arrested, jailed, and indicted for marijuana possession. it's my understanding that this particular employee had a grow peration and was arrested on felony possession charges. n fact, i believe you highlighted this in your november, 2015 report on the e.p.a.'s use of taxpayer dollars for extended administrative for employees who had been suspended for misconduct. report, this that employee was placed, are you listening? to that report, this employee was placed on administrative leave for seven a half months. correct? >> yes, sir, it's correct. correct. e that's not >> it's correct, sir. >> again, he was charged with possession. he had a grow operation. he was put on administrative seven and a d for half months. sir.es, >> as i understand it, the allows for y only ten days of administrative leave when employees commit a crime be put in hey could prison? is that correct? policy.a new a new policy implemented after this? yes. >> okay. so it wouldn't have applied then? >> no.