i'll anticipate we do and yield back. >> ms. lowey. >> thank you, very much and thank you for your presentation. administrator long i understand that fema and the department of homeland security is looking to change the way risk is calculated for met ra poll tan areas this could impact the allocation of grant funding. both state and programs and the security initiative. i'm aware that the threat is changing and we need to take that into account. my concern is that rather than relying on a robust analysis of threat, vulnerability and consequences, the risk analysis will be tweaked to fit what is a perception of the evolving threat. that would defeat the purpose of having a rigorous risk methodology at all. so has any independent and third party outside of fema or department of homeland security looked at the proposed changes to the risk method? and do you think it might be valuable toll have an independent review from the gao or some other forsource of expertise before you change the method of calculating risk? >> ma'am, i appreciate t

wasserman schultz was talking, and there was a discussion with ms. lowey about members acting inappropriately with their staff. but there is also members' offices where it's staff and staff not acting appropriately with each other. so part of what comes to mind is the length of time, 180 days. and you have an employee maybe who goes through mediation and maybe somebody decides to leave on their own. they're not happy in the office. maybe two employees actually work something out. but then you have 60% where that's not ending at the mediation. >> uh-huh. >> we have interns in our office could w.h.o. can be a summer intern to someone who is maybe going to intern for six months, maybe nine months or something like that. what is the remedy for an employee who is in a work situation? because we've done unfortunately some of it is being undone in some of the higher education institutions right now in dorm room settings where people are living together. because if you're working together in our offices, you're in close quarters. what do we do for someone who come

. >> i'm pleased to recognize ranking member general lady from new york, ms. lowey. >> thank you for holding this hearing. attorney general sessions, thank you for joining us. there are multiple hearings this morning as you probably know so i'm really sorry that i missed your testimony. but thank you for being here today. attorney general sessions you recused yourself from the russian investigation lead by special counsel mueller, but it is my understanding that you decided in the to recuse yourself from the investigation and to president trump personal lawyer michael cohen, it was opened in part on a referral from mueller team and rose ensteen approved a raid in the office and hotel room. president trump had a strong reaction to the raids and denouncing them on an attack for what we stand for and took the opportunity to reiterate what a terrible mistake it was to recuse yourself from the russian investigation. i'm puzzled, when it appears to be so closely linked if not rooted in the russian investigation? >> presumably you read that in the media somewhere. >> not f

ms. roybal-allard: ok. i would appreciate it. and mr. chairman, do we have time for a second round? ok. then i'll anticipate we do and yield back. mr. carter: mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: thank you very much. thank you for your presentation. administrator long, i understand that fema and the department of homeland security are looking to change the way risk is calculated for metropolitan areas. this could impact the allocation of grant funding in both the state homeland security grant program and the urban area security initiative. i'm aware that threat -- that the threat is changing and we need to take that into account. my concern, relying on a robust analysis on consequence, the risk analysis will be tweaked to fit what is only a perception of the evolving threat. that would defeat the purpose of having a rigorous risk methodology at all. so has any independent third party outside of fema or department of homeland security looked at the proposed changes to the risk methodology? and do you think it might be valuable to have an independent review from the g.a.o. of some of the source of expertise before you change the method for calculating risk? mr. long