Recess will end and we will stand in her new again. I moved to senator corcoran. Care. You for the thank you. Secretary sullivan, you know how i feel about you. I appreciate the proactive approach you took. I appreciate your coming for the service as well, the funeral. I was not here earlier. I know the hiring present the reorganization was a topic of discussion and i want to talk to about that a little bit. It is something i feel strongly about. We as a senate and a house and the defense reauthorization act, we ask the local Defense Center to take on more responsibility, specifically with regard to disinformation coming from countries meant to undermine some of our basic values and institutions. Russia and china come to mind. There is an Important Role in pushing back against extremism, is question for you is there an ability to keep some of these important entities like the Global Engagement centers specifically from being weakened by a hiring freeze or by other reorganizations that could lead to it having a more difficult time carrying out its important responsibilities . Certainly. Thank you, senator. In thank you for your help also with the case. We appreciate the assistance you provided. With respect to the Global Engagement center, it is a priority for secretary tillerson. Something that is an important part of our mission for the reasons you state. We are flexible. There is a hiring freeze but we are flexible with respect to that. We have rented a number of exceptions. We have granted a present hundred exceptions to the hiring freeze to support safety, security, health. So, we are reviewing them regularly. And, im not aware that there has been as of yet a request with respect to the gec but we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. I think the threats we talked about to present a National Security threat to the United States of america and certainly that would qualify it seems to me. Were just getting this up and going. It is more important than ever given what we know about not only the meddling in our own democracy but some fledgling democracies affected by disinformation and propaganda so i would hope it would be asked for and excepted to the extent you are continuing to develop that important entity. So, thank you for that. If you dont mind what i would like you to do is get back to me on it. See why they have not made a request if they have not. On the ribbon is asian in general, again i know you have had an opportunity to speak about this. Entities you now have oversight over in your role of deputy, in i understand you will head up some of the reorganization ideas and seek Foreign Military financing. Fmf is a critical in relation to american diplomacy and key parts of the world then the budget request, the account was to 2017. By 19 compared to with 95 of the request allocated to just four countries. Israel, age of, jordan, pakistan, think the remaining 200 might to be placed in a global account will stop i guess i just wonder, does this Budget Proposal reflect broader changes and the reorganization . Is the state department considering it part of its ruinous asian . What do you perceive of the defense of such a structure compared to the current fmf structure . The redesign we are undertaking is independent of the budgeting process. Secretary tillerson has made clear that even if our budget were being increased, even if we were the Defense Department and getting more money from the budget that he would undertake a redesigned to look at the mission of the department and how we are organized. One of the work stream workgroups that is constituted for the redesign focuses on foreign assistance for grams and included in that is fmf. So we are considering reviewing that as part of our redesign effort with input from Foreign Service, Civil Service senior level career people to make commendations on improving our foreign assistance programs including fmf. I fmf, are you looking at loans and said grants . Were looking at both. My time is expired. I want to think for help most recently on the case and generally, i wish you good luck on the reorganization. I think theres room for reform. I think there are ways to more effectively be able to represent our interests around the world and i am glad you are or you are. Thank you tournament. Thank you. I hope this is the first of many conversations we will have about the state Department Authorization bill. I have serious reservations about the bill as written for a number of reasons and i want to outline a few of those. It is my personal believe that congress as a whole is a coequal branch of government with the executive and must therefore dutifully exercising its role not only is overseer, but as authorizing. What do you authorize . While i appreciate the efforts of the church include many of the provision senator rubio and i Work Together for the bureau that fall within our subcommittee jurisdiction, the bill merely offers permissive suggestions for the secretary. Saying there should be a bureau within the department that is authorized to promote democracy and actively support human rights route the world is very different from mandating that bureaus existence. Worry, particularly given this administrations intentions, to completely cut funding for democracy, would simply not support such a view. Is in my view, oversight essence to create structure, to authorize it. That is the congress view. This bill does not address a critical component of our Foreign Policy. For nessus is. Id, things they provide are essential elements of a comprehensive Foreign Policy that promotes our interests and builds more stable and resilient allies and partners. To suggest the possibility of closing usaid is alarming. I would like to understand the policy perspective behind that. I am especially concerned we are undertaking this exercise and the administration continues to pursue john carney and cuts. You know we supposedly rejected here, it says the administration and 10 street conan cuts primarily responsible for promoting American Values and securing our interest overseas in order to find reorganization processes that best far seems to be no more than an exercise undermining and pushing out career diplomats and foreign and Civil Service to have dedicated their lives to serving this country which seemingly no. Seemingly no strategic indicate a high level of confusion and demoralization with Civil Servants who express concerns about their futures as well as the trajectory of Foreign Policy. You have explained these measures as saving money and i. S. , at what cost question mark a piece was recently published that said the state department score is being gutted. Lerson is running the way as firing half of its workforce, repurpose thing its original mission, offices are being shuttered while ambassadorial assistance and undersecretary positions remain unfilled. Since this is the beginning of this debate i assume, i just wanted to take most of my time to say that. Let me ask you one or two more questions. Can you share with me whether during your nomination hearing before this committee in may, which i supported you, you know policytural and difference between usaid and state including the longterm Nature Development and focus of diplomacy. Can you give me a sense of whether it is true that proposals to merge usaid into the state department is in fact taking place . Agenciesit reduce the of ptolemy and of so, how do you incorporate the perspective view. You said under oath, in terms of going through the conversation not Real Organization . The first thing i would say, thank you, is we are including both on our steering committee, which is the broad organizing committee the i chair and on all of five working groups including the foreign assistance working groups, senior and less senior officials, career people who first dominate every one of these working groups and to many. Ing and there is proportional representation so a usaid is well represented. The position you just articulated, i agree during my and stillon hearing agree. How many people in a working group . Approximately 50. How many from usaid . It is a breakdown based on the size of the state department versus a idea. I will get you those precise numbers. Is itslieve, view is articulated by senior people who are represented fairly on all of these committees. My time is expired. You told me that they are represented. That is not my question. My question is, is it heart of the policy of Real Organization or intention to fold a id into state and if so, how are you dealing with the differences in culture . My apologies. The answer is no, there is no intention to fold a id into state. That has been proposed by people outside the department. It is something that could be considered by this working group. But if it were it would be with the full input of all of these aid leaders involved. But, i can admit to that there has not been an intention of this department to absorb usaid. If i could, as i understand it just in talking with you but also secretary tillerson, there is no beginning point for making any assumption whatsoever either way as i understand it. And you all are taking input, but youre not beginning this process with the intention of trying to make that happen. You are beginning the process by meeting with others and trying to understand the best way to go forward is that correct . Correct. Into Going Forward it would be done as recommended. And we agree in close consultation with this committee. Mr. Chairman, i remember the refrain that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And so i get what the secretary is saying, but i have serious concerns when people are told to fill out forms and do memos that basically talk about how your service would be moved into another direction. Maybe thats not the intention. Maybe it is informative at the end of the day but im not quite sure first. I have many more requests and i will submit them for the record. I do not want his response misunderstood. I do not think there is an intent to move in another particular direction. I think it is also fair that you want input and others want to put before a decision like that is made. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to you and senator cardin for holding this hearing which i think is very important because as so many of my colleagues and said, it is critical that Congress Play and oversight role in this reorganization effort and our engagement as a committee, when we are in the process of a state reauthorization process i is particularly important. Yet, i have some reservations that i shared with the Committee Chairman about moving forward with this kind of realization that the department. While we are also doing a reauthorization and we have no idea what is going to come out of our reorganization with the department and what your recommendations will be. So i have some specific questions but before i get to those that want to raise a topic i know this committee has been concerned about. I know it was raised last week. I think with you, actually. That is the report of undersecretary shannons meeting with the Russian Deputy minister today. Raised had experts, i this last week before the Armed Services committee when we are talking about russias influence election andegro their coup attempt, actually. What kind of message it would send if we returned those facilities we seized in response to the attack on our elections. The armedses before Services Committee were unanimous in saying that it is absolutely the wrong message for us to be sending. I want to races again because i think it is a very big issue and i hope you will keep the Committee Informed about any updates on these talks on what happens with this issue. Certainly. I had this conversation with senator cardin last week. Those properties to which you refer have are part of a a larger dialogue with the Russian Federation involving issues, for png issue. E the Russian Diplomats who were expelled. There are a whole host of issues that we are discussing with the Russian Federation. I understand there is a meeting going on as we speak. But, my undertaking commitment to senator cardin and to you is that we will consult with you on this issue before any final of an agreement that we do not have yet with the Russian Federation. That. L, i appreciate again, i do not think we should be rewarding russia until we see their behavior change. So, i am going to go on to a couple of issues relative to the we. You mentioned the confirmation conversation we had at your confirmation hearing about the office of global womens issues. Which i understand is that our draft authorization text still removes the ambassador at large position. It is hard to think about setting up an office of global womens issues without having someone in charge of that who significant authority. So, can you talk about what you are doing with respect to that issue as you are looking at the reorganization . Certainly. It is a high priority for the secretary, ses testified. And, as i have testified. It is a high priority for the white house and to the Senior Advisor to the president. Theoffice itself, as is case with all of the special envoys that we have been cussing, is included because it is a look at the entire department it is included in what we are assessing. I can commit several things. That issue will the significance of that issue of empowering women will not be downgraded to matter what happens to the office. We will consult with you before any action is taking. We are committed at the department to empowering women at the department and those three things i am confident out and commit to. Well, it thank you. I very much appreciate that. One of the other reports and has come out in the last weeks that the white house is pushing for euros andrtment Consular Affairs and the bureau of population refuges and migration to be transferred to the department of homeland security. Can you speak to whether that is under consideration . It is similar to my response to the senator menendez. That is not the intent of the department. Secretary tillerson does not intention. Sent that it is something that if it were raised in our review, we would consider it that it would be considered with the understanding that the affairs function and the function of prm are vital to our mission at the department of state. As i discussed last week at the hearing on thursday. Well, thank you. I again appreciate that. The council of affairs has then charged with setting visa policy since 1952 when we passed an act that, thek to shift department of homeland at a time when the issue of refugees and immigration is so controversial would be the absolutely wrong approach and i will just tell you right now that if that is the case, i will be one of those opponents leading the charge. Thank you. I just come again, i want to revisit the subject senator hernandez brought up and then i went to revisit something senator shaheen set up. Idea at all they did is the intention of the secretary of state to push for a merge of usaid and state. I get none of that. I dont think that is an outcome they are driving. On the other hand, they are talking with people and getting input as to how the organization not to be setup. Yet, i do not think there is any desire whatsoever for that outcome to occur. Ok . I do not. Know you have some concerns about the piece of legislation and we all know that anyone senator at this juncture can keep it from happening. What i do not understand it is, no we have talked about at some of the four, i do not understand why waiting to do with an authorization, the lack of the state department being active, i do not see how that benefits anybody. I just do not understand that. I mean, we are continuing to build out a state Department Authorization each are. And larger inger larger. At some point we will have the holding done. I do know that understand how because they are going through a not taking action benefits us. I know we talked about that. Again, any one person can keep it from happening. I just dont understand how that pertains to the senate. So we are having an open discussion. Maybe this is improper but i just wanted to raise it. Sure. Understand the reauthorization were looking at, we do not deal with usaid. Is that correct . Up theh is how we set process on the frontend in order to accomplish as much as we thought we could underrate unanimous consent type senate. Go ahead. Well, i guess, it feels to me like if there were a reorganization that makes a recommendation for usaid or the bureau of Consular Affairs or level womens issues, whatever it is, that what now goes into effect if we have already done our reauthorization, we dont really have a vehicle we can help to raise to move congress concerns about those reorganization policies that we might disagree with and that is the concern i have. Except that we have the authorization again next year. We do but not withholding we have no way of keeping the vehicle. Do you understand . I do, but i also understand when something goes into effect is harder to i do it then to prevent it from happening. But we do not have a vehicle. I mean, again, i am just missing the psychology here and i want to understand. As i would like for us to continue as a committee to build out to a place where we actually authorizationpe process because each year dishes getting broader and broader and broader. I do not understand how it can have any effect on the reorganization when they are going to come back and consult with us anyway. It is a with us anyway. Conversation we need to continue to have. Roughly. I wantzaon build on this year so i with you on that. I think it is a reality we have to look at what has been done in the administration. Let me give you an example. Tonight there was a press report that the secretary of state is considering the elimination of the special coordinator for global criminal justice issues, which basically deal with atrocities and war crimes. There is great interest in this committee on both sides of the ,isle for syrian war crimes accountability, erecting war iraq war crimes and accountability, preventing atrocities, etc. Although i understand the secretary wants to reorganize, is being broadcast as downplaying the importance of holding were war criminals accountable. In that environment it is going to be difficult for us not to respond. I think to the senators point dealing with usaid, yes we have agreed this framework would not include usaid, but it the administration is making fundamental changes and i understand secretary told them believe that is not the case, but if they would take fundamental changes on usaid and we remain silent that is a challenge. If they are going to do major changes in war crimes accountability and we are silent that is a nonstarter for bothdemocrats and republicans on this committee. I think it is a reality that we are going to have to respond. I want to get to the finish line. Each year there is an authorization that comes up and each year you can write things in and make the law. I do not see how remaining silent by not acting in any way causes us to be anyless silent. Again, i do not get the psychology, but i need to understand it for us to move ahead. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity. Let me just give you a few cuts. As you may remember i didnt even want to move forward on the state authorization. Out of preference to the chair i stop my objection on the floor. We have worked together on many things. This is not an ideological issue, but one of the most critical things the committee critical things the committee could do. For example, in answer to your question how does waiting benefit . If we were actually having legislation that was creating certain parts of the state department in a mandatory form i would say it does not go to our benefit to way. But when we create permissiveness across the board the second complicatingfactor is that the reorganization taking place by the secretary is such a permissive nature and might be seen as giving in and ok. That what you ended up doing is ok. For some of us, some of the things rather intended or not and i accept that you are engaged far more, but i know that i be director mulvaney has a different view than the secretary. He may be pushing that viewfrom an Administration Point of view. It may not even be thesecretary at the end of the day. The point being when we give itthat sense i do not want to be responsible for things i really have a problem with. The last point is the question of it will be far more difficult, in my view, having sat where you have sat andhaving an administration and my party and standing up to it when i personally believed they were wrong on a policy basis, to challenge and next years authorization something that the administration will have done. So they structure their new department as they wish and pursue their reorganization in any meaningful effort and now once having done that, members, not only on this committee but the senate as a whole will be put into a position of if they believe that reorganization or elements there of were not appropriate, will challenge the administration to do that in a new authorization bill. That may not be a problem for the chair. I recognize the chairs independence, but i am not sure that is everybody. When you ask why wait, that is why. I am glad to have this conversation. We are in that situation either way. If we act within the next 60 days or we do not act within the next 60 days we are in that same situation, but we havent built it out further. I understand permissive versus mandatory, that is a point well taken, but by not acting oracting we find ourselves in the same place when the timing of what they do will occur later on. I just wanted to make a point to clarify that i support the reauthorization. In fact, i think this committee should have the same kind of process that the Armed Services committee has where we do and authorization every year. It is debated, it goes to the floor, there is an understanding it will be part of whatwe do annually. I think we need to elevate the role of diplomacy in the state department. Having that kind of a process does that. I am totally in agreement on that and were just disagreeing about timing. That is fine. Each year there seems to always come an issue and i really appreciate both of you, i think last year on the floor the two of you were actually somewhat resistant for different reasons. I appreciate you allowing us to continue to build out. I have shared with each of you and senator cardin, i do not come into this with any ideology. I come at this because i want this committee to determine the policies that they have in place at the state department and usaid. It is more important to me that each year we build that out so that we continue to build it out in whatever direction. I do not know how stopping it this year benefits us, but i am still listening. Thank you, mister chairman. Are we going to be in an echo chamber . I will just say that if there is going to be an effort by this administration to eliminate special envoys and this legislation makes it possible for them to eliminate them, were talking the special representative for nuclear proliferation. The special representative of biological and Weapon Convention issues. The representative to the organization for the prohibition ofchemical weapons. The special negotiator for plutonium disposition, the special envoy for climate change, the office of the special coordinator, the special representative for International Labor affairs, the special envoy of human rights for lgbt persons, to coordinate a sanctions policy, for religionand global affairs, and the representative for Northern Ireland issues. I am very concerned that language in this state bill will have the effects of cutting all of these positions unless theadministration chooses to fill them. I think it would be betterfor us to know what that plan is so we can respond to their proposal rather than giving them this authorization to doso without having an idea as to how many of these positions might be eliminated, if not all. Mister sullivan, how many are you contemplating eliminating . There is no preconceived view on any of those offices. The goal is for all of the issues represented, they all are important. Our overriding goal is to make sure those issues are addressed properly. One concern that we have with envoy is that delinked. For example, for the Northern Island representative, it is not a part of the european bureau. It would not be a case item, i do not think without prejudging, but just as an example for that special envoy, rather than being a speciale nvoy outside of the Organizational Bureau who reports directly to the senator excuse me, secretary and therefore is someone insulated from this committee because the assistant secretary for european affairs, that special envoy reports to the secretary. It is really a question of how we address those important issues and structure our bureaucracy accordingly. As you know, it took a long time to get a special envoy tosouthern ireland, right . But each one of these other special envoys reflect a priority that was established to ensure a little special attention that otherwise the issue might not be seen from the department in general. It was given that special role. None of these are incidental. Each area has a reason why they have a special envoy. If we move into larger parts of the agency that do not have any squarely aligned responsibility with a senior person inside of the department it would run the risk of slipping through the cracks and not getting the attention it needed or having the focus, which clearly we have tried over the years to ensure that each area receives. That is the concern that i have and others as well. Northern ireland is a good example. It has moved on to a more mature area, but in the area of brexit there is likely to be an exacerbation that we have not seen in a long time and, to be honest, the new government in Great Britain is dependent upon this alliance with the Northern Ireland parties that may or may not square out. It is the objective that the United States is trying to advance over the years. Point that out to you we can get thee sequencing correct. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and deputy secretary sullivan for joining us. Just in the past week we have learned the state Department Spent approximately 15,000 at a trump hotel in vancouver when the president s daughter stayed there. The Washington Post obtained this information by the freedom of information act. This use of taxpayer dollars reminded me of the many questions in an unanswered letter that i sent to the state department, along with several other senators. I am hoping that you could help us answer these questions. There are properties all over the world with the trump name prominently displayed on them. Many areas that have been targeted by terrorism. On march on march 8 i wrote asking what, if any taxpayer resources are being spent to secure Trump Organizations commercial real estate around the globe . First, will the state department respond soon . It has already been four months since we sent a letter . Senator, you have my apologies that you have not received a response yet. Do you have a timeline on how so you can respond . It is the first that i have heard of it. When i returned this evening i will make sure it is acted on. I know you have discussed with me on several occasions how important you thought it was for you to give us information because we have a crucial role to play under the constitution. Has anyone in the Trump Administration requested assistance from state to help secure a Trump Organization property . Not to my knowledge. I have seen the press reports on the hotel in vancouver. I have asked about it and my understanding is that the state department, as we frequently do assist other agencies where we have a conflict and making hotel bookings. My understanding is the bookings that you refer to work forsecret service. They were not for the state department. We just happened, because we have a consulate, we did not seek out the booking. They were not our people. It was for another government agency. No. So you do not know whether or not anyone in the trumporganization or administration requested assistance from stateto help secure a Trump Administration property, but you will look into that and get us an answer . Yes. I am sure you understand the thrust of these questions . I serve on a number of committees, one is the appropriations. I really believe that taxpayers are entitled to know how their money is being spent. And then it is a judgment call for them more than anything. Has the state department, the department of state rated a property or purchase additional goods or services from the Trump Organization to facilitate state Department Missions . Not to my knowledge. I will get a response to that properly. Ok. If so, is there an agreement in place for the trumporganization to reimburse the federal government for thosecosts . I assume you will also get an answer for that . Yes, senator. There are further questions in the letter, i would like a full written response to these and other questions. This administration has not responded and i will submit all of these for the record. You have my word. A number of recent reports have highlighted a morale problem at the state department as well as many of the concerns regarding the budget cuts being proposed at date. Thetop leadership is reportedly very isolated from the nationsdiplomats. Do you believe that career Civil Service officers servean Important Role in our nations diplomacy . Unquestionably. Will you increase efforts to integrate the new Political Leadership with career staff that best represent americas interests abroad . I will and i have. I spoke of the Foreign Service institute a couple of weeks ago, 700 Foreign Service officers. I have prepared remarks and i put them aside and picked up the microphone and opened it up for questions. I said hit me withyour best shot. Because those men or women are the backboneof the department. I and the secretary have an enormous amount of respect for them and their view. I could not agree with you more. In my travels around the world meeting the people that are living in the countries asprofessional and career people and so dedicated to this country and making sure our country gets it right in getting our foreign policies right. I want to thank you for your talk with them and taking this approach. I want to stress that any authorization approved by congress shouldinclude significant oversight language to ensure congress has the final say about any proposed reorganization. Thank you very much. Senator cardin . Secretary, i would like to our hope about how you and this committee can Work Together on issues in the state department. Congress appropriates money, Congress Sets the statue. The trump in some cases have different views as we have seen in some of the actions taken by the administration. Certainly their physical year 2018 budget is different than what congress theafter we had the president s budget. We are a coequal branch of government. We expect the state department to implement what congress has done. When we provide you funding and authoritywe expect that to be carried out. The president can do a lot of things, we recognize that. Ultimately we want to Work Together. So when the Administration Proposed the freeze it was having some really adverse impacts. We pointed that out with the fellows and said thank you, it was reversed allowing the fellows to join the class this year and we are pleased about that. But as i mentioned in my opening statement, we have achallenge before trump was elected with diversity in the state department. We have had hearings in congress on this, we have had numerous opportunities to try to improve diversity. Can you just give us some assurances that that when Congress Passes appropriations and authorizations that it should be carried out . It must be carried out by the state department. Secondly,how you deal with the diversity issue with the overriding policies of contraction that is currently the pressure that you are under. First of all, senator, as the deputy secretary is aware, i can confirm with you that we will follow the law and concerns of congress. We are a nation of laws and the department abides by those laws. And i know that you will do everything in your power to carry that out. That is one of the reasons we were so pleased to support your nomination and pleased that you are there. I think it will be more difficult than just those words. We wish you well. I will seize on that point to address your second point, i saidthis when i spoke to the Foreign Service institute students, actions speak louder than words. I can offer all the latitude that one can think of on diversity and how important it is, but actions speak louder than words. What i said to the students was that i expect them and you to hold us accountable for what we commit to do. We commit, i commit, to doing all we can to have a diverse state department. Why . It is the right thing todo as americans, because equal opportunity is enshrined in our constitution. Secondly, it is not merely the faith that we presentto the the world, but it is doing our own job, getting input from all of the different races, ethnicities, genders, it is that input thatmakes it easier for us to do our job in interpreting what is going on in Foreign Countries and interacting with foreign government. It is important as a policy matter and not just amoral or legal matter. You have my commitment on that. If i do not follow through you can bring me back up here and tell me where i have fallen. Thank you, mr. Secretary. We appreciateyour commitment. I thank you for being here also. I know that we are going tokeep the record open until the close of business wednesday. I know there will be a number of questions and to the extentthat you can answer those quickly we appreciate it. I know there was an outside consultant that generated a report from the listing tour and it confirmed what many of us have been hearingfor years, this is not at any special envoy that i direct this, but they do more harm than good. I think they hurt the culture of our professional Foreign Service officers, because i think they see them in many cases as a workarounds. All of us have been in organizational situations where a person is in a job and not doing it well. So we create a work around. It hurts the culture. Professionals doing their jobs well. We know that. Fromhat is what we learn this listening toward. It is like a lot of kind of places are closing. Thing for a special special state or special interest. With all will do away of them that are unnecessary and i think most of them are unnecessary, ok . And i think the Foreign Service professionals think they are unnecessary. We just had one graded, unfortunately, for ukraine. The secretary of state says most of these things are unnecessary and then he creates one. Well, this person is going to carry out some important policy prior nation, right . Ukraine position is important. If were going to do that, they should at least be confirmed. We ought to be able to confirm them. Look, these positions are duplicative. They waste money. They have huge step. We may end up having some special envoys that are vote likebut get one the other 20 people on the committee, think mostly it is a waste of money. A waste of time. It hurts our culture. I hope youll do everything you can to do away with most of them. If not all of so, anyway up that is balancing out some of the other comments it up and made. I thank you for being here today. I thank you for your great spirit, if you will, and wanting to work with us. I think you are bringing a lot to the department that is needed at this particular time. So think you for coming. Please answer our questions promptly. The meeting is adjourned. Announcer coming up this morning, the Senate ForeignRelations Committee takes up the nomination of calista gingerich to be ambassador to the that again. She is the wife of former house think rich. See the live Coverage Today at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Drugs wednesday, the House Republican blueprint is marked up for 2018. Our live coverage begins at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on wednesday cspan3. A. M. When we look at president obamas domestic legacy, i think there are two things that are very important. ,hat will have longlasting good consequences to the United States that can be summarized and forwards. Sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, his two nominees to the supreme court. The second of our twopart david gero. Th he talks about his book, rising star the making of rock obama, which follows Barack Obamas life up until his nomination for the presidency. Andx there were scores scores of people in illinois who it known them in years earlier her work deeply is appointed with the trajectory of the Obama Presidency and disappointed in two ways. Number one, disappointed that barack forgot the people, many of the people come most of the people who were essential to his political rise. Bags sunday night at 8 00 q a. On cspans this sunday, at a special event. ] unfire live from that detroit free 50th newsroom marking the anniversary of the 1967 detroit riots. We will talk to pulitzer is winning historian and another to talk about what happened and why. Then the free price press editorial editor and the Free Press News journalist discuss the Media Coverage of the riot and its aftermath. The 1967 detroit riots, 50 years later. Five sunday starting at noon eastern on American History tv on cspan3. Live today on cspan, washington journal is next. At 10 00 a. M. , the house returns for general speeches. At noon, the house takes up those having to do with hydroelectric power in state emergency preparedness. Coming up in an hour, pennsylvania congressman brendan 2018 on efforts to pass a temple budget. At 8 30, more about the federal budget with texas representative Jodey Arrington of budget committee. At 9 00, and author talks about his book on the opioid epidemic. Host good morning. It is tuesday, july 18. After two more Senate Republicans announced their opposition to the revised Gop Health Care bill, Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell was forced to acknowledge defeat placemat late last night. A newell began pushing plan to repeal the Affordable Care act with a twoyear transition period. We will talk about all of this today on washington journal. Democrats can call in at 2027488000