that. alaska is a lot more than just oil and gas. living on the land, subsisting. the fact that the caribou help survive and are the part where of life are active in this movement. we like to do it we can to help and protect this iconic place. >> alaska has among the highest health care costs in this country. of the federal government could fundamentally restructure health care, provide universal axes to health care, that would go a long way toward helping the state. >> the most pressing issue i hear has to do with concerns about crime. i believe that efforts to increase the police force have been yielding gains but people are still very worried. as the mother of three kids, that is an issue. that is one of the reasons i chose to run for office. announcer: be sure to join us

july 21 and 22. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> and rose, a former national security adviser with the obama administration and as speechwriter for the duration of the obama administration is joining us to talk about his new book, "the world as it is." the whole reason for coming in the first place was a year of experience in new york after september 11? be a writer.ed to i was working on political campaigns. and it was september 11 and i thea clear view of watching first tower falling. and i knew whatever i was going

to do in my life at 24-year-old was going to be about what happened then. and i went to an army recruiter who didn't know what to make of a community writing major. and worked my-- foreign policy. and i felt i wanted to get involved in politics because that is how you make change. your meeting with obama, fairly after, he brought you on board? 2007? i had been doing free work for the obama campaign and i got called into a session where they go around the issues they have to deal with in the upcoming presidential debate. and i was so nervous back then that frankly, i felt like i couldn't speak in paragraphs.

they were debating whether or not he should vote for a bill that would fund the iraq war. and he likes that approach in terms of trying to figure out was.ommon sense case and ultimately i was hired to write. host: not to give away the end of the book but you do write on one of the last trips with him --obama in 2016 2016. he asks you, what if we were wrong, did that clarify the answer? guest: i wrote the book to answer the question. thehaving been there on first day and the last day of the obama administration with experiencing eight years of history and having the end be so much against what we were comeng for -- sometimes we

as progressives, we think everything moves aggressively in one decision. society could be more progressive and you underestimate how contested american politics work. in thesaw backlash united states and in britain. but i wanted to revisit both. in the united states and around the world, frankly, at the end i end on a hopeful note. because if you take a long look at history, it is what is the direction of things? and i believe that the politics that barack obama represented is ultimately where the country is heading. to 2008,you look back

it was much harder to say that in 2008. what i found in my 10 years in the senate -- in the center of this political world, americans like authenticity. and they want you to be upfront about that. themlike progressives want to be authentic. in the same sense that trump is authentic, so is barack obama. there has been a greater acceptance of just being ourselves. when we look like we are not in,aring what we believe you want to know who you are being asked to vote for. it's interesting to trace this over eight years.

in the beginning, it was such a crisis. and then turning to the oppressive agenda outside of health care and reform. what hindered our gender was an inability to find a way to work with republicans. understandably they had a different view. it was the complete embrace of the opposite of what obama was for. progressives confides in space to work together even if policies are different. gay marriage, climate change -- you saw a much more advanced sense of progressivism because we couldn't find any common

ground so we just it up for the things we believed. host: famously in the first year of the administration, mitch mcconnell made it his now to one term president. how did that hurt? guest: it is interesting when you comment and you don't know what the congressional benefit will be for the full eight years. we had a majority. we got a huge amount done. impossible to get a major piece of legislation through. mitch mcconnell's approach was such a brick wall. and it was different even then who was more inclined to get something done. presidenthing the

could do was executive action and then they say you are not an executive. most relevant for today was merrick garland. eight months before the end of his term, obama nominated someone and didn't get a hearing on him. that is without precedent. host: you wrote that the refusal was staggeringly un-partisan and unpatriotic. the republican party spent eight years disbanding norms and -- what else do you mitch mcconnell, he was worn down by republican obstructionist. september 2016, we went to congress and said, here

is the evidence and here's what we know about russians interfering with the election. and we would like this to be a bipartisan expression of concern about a foreign adversary meddling. mcconnell refused to sign off so ultimately there was no bipartisan statement. obama -- i was shocked and others were shocked that mitch mcconnell looked at statement,olitical admit it waso happening. , democrats.748-8000 (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent collars. the book is called "the world as it is."

what was the president's worldview coming in in 2008 and how did it change? coming in worldview was that we were overextended in the wars in iraq. and he saw the principal objective was responsibly trying to draw down troops. at thehad 180,000 troops beginning of the administration. down to 15,000 at the end of the administration. and what he wanted to do was draw those down and then refocus on a broader set of priorities. anding with climate change stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, which led to the iran nuclear deal. changed is circumstance. and that always happens when you are president. managing these different

syria, obviously we didn't come in expecting that would consume the amount of time that it did. and there, he struggled to but abound between doing what we could, to limit human suffering -- but he always had humility intowe can't keep going middle eastern countries one after the other to remake society. it didn't work, fundamentally. so it was how much can we do to manage the crisis versus not wanting to get overextended in another war as we were in iraq. host: we have collars waiting for ben rhodes. greg, go ahead. caller: good morning. at the obamaback administration, it is clear that one of the key foreign-policy is

a struggle related to israel and in particular, barack obama's relationship with benjamin netanyahu. and i think it is reflected in the news in the last may that linked to a spy and security organization, which was also involved in helping harvey weinstein dig up dirt on his , involved inrs operations against obama officials that were involved in drafting the iran deal. rhodes is, for ben this is obviously a major issue of difference where the obama administration had significant differences with the benjamin netanyahu government. the trump administration has taken a much more positive approach.

a much better relationship in terms of agreeing about iran and other issues relating to israel and a media policy. in the division of netanyahu and those closest to him. how much of this whole battle going on within foreign-policy establishment with regards to how much is related to israel and a different vision as far as iran is concerned? is an important disagreement between the obama administration and the young yahoo! -- and the netanyahu government. >> an important question. i spent a lot of time on this in my book. the reality is that barack obama obviously had a different point netanyahu, not a

fundamental relationship in israel. we provide more support for the security that any of ministration in history. issues, howrincipal to deal with iran and his nuclear program and how to accomplish it. we supported a two state solution to the israeli -palestine conflict and were unable to make progress there. and it was a failure of our administration. but the reality is that when you parties who are willing to take big risks as the former is really leaders did, there is only so far you can get. it was really, do we believe we can resolve this issue diplomatically with the nuclear program? our view was that iran was a bad actor.

they threaten terrorism. that is why we wanted to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. at the end of the day, prime minister netanyahu didn't want to see that go forward. he wanted to address every aspect of iranian behavior. and that with the approach of having a world power and an a nuclearjust being program. i think it did shape a lot of the debates in washington and the foreign-policy. israel and saudi arabia are influential countries here in washington. covering lot of time the case. and it is very adversarial towards iran. and also towards the iran nuclear deal. the thing you mention is just an indication of how ugly the scott.

-- how ugly this got. reporting information on my family and my children, pictures of my apartment where i lived, i think that it is one thing to have differences on policy. it is another thing when it crosses a line and it gets that personally i can't think of a precedent in history where you have that type of investigation by a foreign contractedentially members of the administration. i hope that for everyone in government it doesn't become a normal thing. what i take a different view. it is better to have the iran agreement in place to prevent nuclear weapons than the uncertainty that we have without it. obviously the irony for me sitting here watching the developments unfold is that trump is going to north korea and trying to reach some type of

agreement there -- thus far basically has some kind of a nuclearnt to give up weapons. not nearly as robust as what was in the iran agreement. it is difficult to explain why that worked out when the more internationally inspected limitations of the iran deal were not. host: for all the discussion about doing low-level meetings between north korea and iran or whatever is being structured, you write in the book that president obama early on wrote the supreme leader of iran and broached the idea of some sort of conversation starter. what was the reaction? in 2009. wrote that he was very open to diplomacy with adversaries. saying that we make peace with enemies, not with friends.

over-the-topan recitation of differences with the united states through history. we clearly were not going to get anywhere. we did take some of his language -- i want to show the reader how this works in the white house -- we took some language that the supreme leader wrote and put it letter, so that we got your letter, but we won't compromise on the things we believe in. frankly, it took an evolution where we imposed sanctions for several years before they were willing to come to the table. so sanctions change their thinking. and also the change in president. the combination of the sanctions and the new president opened up a window for diplomacy in the second obama term. host: let's go to florida, charlotte, good morning.

caller: thank you very much. c-span, you do a fantastic job. good morning, ben rhodes. an lightning and a thought-provoking book. i have this book. i am an academic myself. i'm going to include this book in a 13 book curriculum masters program. because i think it creates a very inside view of the perspective. the historical context and politics. and the responsibilities that we have as citizens. you had an upfront and close insight in writing this book. my question to you sir, if i one, let's look at the 25 year windows of when we brown, coming

into 1968, with the changes that -- it appearsde to me that we have an entrenched where the democrats, by refusing to demand an authority to govern on behalf of a constituency, but rather prioritizing that we will sacrifice the instrument of power for the perception of principle. your book is a brilliant reflection of the principal leadership that i believe the

obama administration brought to the country and to the world for 25 years, our chronological history that we will look on as historians. to let himoing respond. guest: thank you for the comments on the book. i hope it is useful to you in your curriculum. you raise an important question. in this to show people book what it is like to go through the personal experience did it, what he was wrestling with. andar rides and plane rides what were the forces in opposition to us? there were a lot. i don't mean that as a parson statement. it is a fact that we did face an opposition.l of as we discussed before, mitch

withnell refused to work the administration from day one. not seeing what we would do. you saw the rise of the media with obama. and it was qualitatively different from the type of opposition that we have seen in the past. and the underlying premise of your question is fair. there seems to be an imbalance. wanting tosistently republicans.t to and i put an example in the book. there is a movie about working with the president to get something done. and obama brought a bunch of republicans to the screening to think it would be something nice to do but not a single one came. campvited republicans to david to talk and nobody came.

you can extend a hand but if somebody doesn't reach back then you can't work together. and i think we've seen a pattern in the last few years. it became difficult for democrats to figure out how to deal with that level of opposition. and how do you balance the need to try to work together, to lead by an example where you are not trying to be -- the strange thing for obama is that he was cast as a radical figure when he temperamentally conservative guy. he gets along with people. he isn't a name caller. becomes, when you try to work together and you try , andt that type of sample when you had to say, i'm going to go my way and fight for the things i believe -- he was willing to do that on a number

of cases, gay marriage or health care or the change on immigration and climate change. but this is a difficult call for democrats. at the end of the day, you don't want to turn into the political force that rejected you. you don't want to be a mirror image of that force of obstruction and rejection. what i think you have to stand on principle. and you make your case. and you build your movement. and that is what barack obama was able to do in 2008, to overcome the backlash that they were facing. question, weyour have to make our case to build the constituency and we have to turn out our votes to try to work with the other side. try to lead by example and by

embracing a view of democracy that is inclusive. what i think when you reach a certain limit there, you have to to fight on principle. and that is basically the view that parties have raised under trump. rhodes is our guest. john is up next from north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. i appreciate the conversation this morning. i look forward to reading your book. it is people like you that i like to listen to because you have an inside birdseye view versus the average person out insight andds that perspective because you come across as a respectful young man. and you will seem rational. want, nois what i matter if a person's democrat or republican or independent. ,e want thoughtful disagreement

both sides listening and we want people to work out problems. that is the reason people like me voted for trump. we are interested in outcomes. as i listen this morning, i say this with the deepest respect for everyone -- there is a lot of talk that i've heard about , specifically. i don't help anyone listening to this couldn't rationally conclude that everything you just stated about how the republicans are up structure obama -- howsident that is not near it now. what i would like to hear you comment on is -- if you can answer this question for me. there was no hearing for his nominee for the supreme court justice because the numbers

weren't there. the republicans were in position to with hold a hearing. i would like to ask you respectfully, can you honestly if theyour perspective democrats were in a issue in the senate and congress today to stop a hearing from taking place on his nominee, no matter what anyone thinks about the nominee, can you comment and let us know -- advise us, i do think democrats would not obstruct even permitting the hearing? i look for to listening to your book and your comments. i'm going to purchase your book and i'm going to read it. i appreciate your time. guest: i appreciate your question enter,. all, part of the challenge -- and i understand -- people say to me that, how did

some people vote for obama and central, i understand the frustration. you just want change. i do believe the obstruction is a political strategy under obama. from the get-go they were going to be against what he does. it had more to do with the .ysfunction obama tried in the early days with the economic crisis. -- which third of that actually is and what we would have done if left to our own devices but we tried to bring republicans along. we had an enormous bill to bailout the american economy and we try to make it the type of bill that could attract bipartisan support. again, there was a political judgment made on the other side of the table saying, we are better off hunkering down, not

voting for anything obama does and then running against him. which is everyone's political right. your impatience with obstruction, if someone came in and lead with some of the things we talked about on the campaign trail like infrastructure, saying that, we need to get this economy hyper charged and we need to fix our roads and ridges, you would have found democrats willing to work with him. even people like chuck schumer. i think the selection out of the gate that he pursued to start with the repeal of health care is obviously not something that will win democratic support. it is obviously the most contentious to messick policy in our country. so i think there is an agenda that could be pursued that is bipartisan. that deals with the development of infrastructure, or deals with

since the occasion of the tax code, education -- the types of things where america just wants to see improvements in their lives. and even on that ideas that usually attract bipartisan support, it was hard to find. trump's agenda is not a little place for the issues that democrats care about. on immigration. i would like a compromise to get done. i understand or frustrated. i think democrats would prefer to not use obstruction. it is quite likely that if democrats controlled the senate, it is quite likely that they to heavilyast try scrutinize the nominee. i think in perpetuity holding up the hearing until the next president is elected, i don't

think that is practically feasible. what think that after happened with merrick garland, if democrats had power now, i think they would wait until after the midterm elections. have done this over the years at points. in this case, mitch mcconnell the argument that the election thein eight months, american people should have a say before there is a hearing on supreme court justices, democrats are in a similar position now, less than six months before the elections. so i think you're right. but this is a consequence. it is very hard to say to a political party that we get to break the rules, we get to violate the norms and not have a

supreme court hearing but you hold yourself to a higher standard so we can get all of our things done. other sideon is the of the claim to the previous caller who was expressing the frustration that we try to abide by the norms and get run over. that this fever breaks in general for both parties. i think it probably will take a couple of elections to reset the dynamic in washington. i frankly think it is asking a lot for democrats, given this president attacking them and completely undoing the obama legacy to say that, this is what will garner bipartisan support. it would take it to front set of issues. there is confined space for common ground. host: among many things you

write about in the book, there's a photo in the book showing obama making the announcement and your infant six-day-old daughter in front of the screen. tells about that process? and what do you think about the trump administration's reversal of some of this policy? guest: to me, it was one of the most exciting things we did a government. we led secret negotiations with the cubans. which ultimately led us to the vatican. and it really was a powerful thing to produce a bit into. essentially putting it difficult. of our time against us. and in our first meeting with the cubans, i described that they went through the bay of pigs invasion. and castro and the cuban missile crisis. all these grievances that build up. and i wasn't even born when those things happened.

i think it did express a bigger point in cuba and that congress can work through issues with dialogue. could improvee --es of the people in cuba we wanted to help cubans. clearly what we were doing wasn't working. more permission were reaching the cubans. it would be more likely to open up political change. libertarians like that idea. many believe that open markets

-- that there were opportunities could sell them and if you put this to a vote in congress, the embargo would go away tomorrow because there is a lot of republican support for it. there are voices that are well placed to put a hard line against cuba in both parties. marco rubio on the republican side. that trumprienced is is having a missed opportunity. he essentially hit the pause button.

the chief thing i can say is that in his announcement, he cast this as wanting to help the cuban people but they hated this. these people are now isolated again. the cuban people are suffering again. cuba is not becoming more democrat. we are once again beating them over the head. if we are into did in the actual outcome, opening up to a place that is 90 miles from florida seeing that -- host: (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent callers. caller: good morning.

as a former national security advisor, what you see is the role of world poverty aid and how do you see the position change through the trump administration in washington and amongst americans around the country? and what the repercussions were of this change in how world leaders perceive the americans. guest: an important question and a tough one. first, we are talking about a the money percent of we spend. and it does enormous good. some of it is about saving lives. hiv-eightssh's initiative saved millions of lives.

so for instance, when the ebola epidemic took place, our ability to strengthen the public south -- the public health system in africa save lives. you can go down the list. foreign assistance makes life better for us. the ability to try to improve situations for government. their -- itent for comes back to the united states. my concern there is that we see a slashing of that assistance. i think it has a number of repercussions. number one, this could harm a lot of people. people rely on this to prevent

.isease and on a human level, america should always be the leader of the world and solve problems and make life better. ourndly, it will prevent capacity to deal with issues. at a fraction of the cost. the most obvious one was a military. than costs a lot more preventing a war. you money money we're spending on enforcement actions, potentially on a wall, we get that their investments in central america in preventing the flow of people through the border. the reason people come through the border isn't because it is easy, it is because people don't want to stay where they are because they are at grave risk of islands or destitution.

this is what we try to do at the end of the obama years. it could dramatically cut down people.flow of could take1 billion on cutting down the people seeking to reach. seems like, why do we spend this money and other countries, it can also be in our own interest. i think it hurts us as the leader of the world when we walk away from these programs. other countries are supporting them. the united states, part of the leadership roles in the world is that we build collective action for how we solve these problems. and we walk away from the table, we isolate ourselves.

and other countries like china take our place. china provides a lot of assistance to latin america and southeast asia. that if we walk away from the field, the chinese will be the ones to replace us. a very different view of how the world should be organized and our world will suffer. been is next on the democrat line. thank you for accepting my call. i want to make a statement. i served 25 years where we have in massachusetts don't try tot and humiliate republicans. we attempt to work together. we have a good working relationship with the republican governor. at time that i served -- least on four different occasions.

toyou end up trying cooperate and give the best outcome. that the government can provide to the constituency. i wanted to talk a little bit and ask you a question -- you have a good name, my name is i haven't read your book but i plan to. i have listened to you and i respect the perspective you provide. that when obama was create ahe tried to working relationship with the republican party. you explained why that didn't happen already. but he did try. and among his effort, he also appointed members to his cabinet. he kept james comey, the head of the fbi. gates, who wasn't a

republican but he tried to -- he appointed some directly. just rotation, environmental. i would like for you to talk how he tried to cooperate in terms of government. i don'tthis president, know any who have been appointed. called bobnk he gates, yoda? guest: his view was that you needed continuity. bob gates had the understated political way of providing advice. very calm. obama did call him yoda. and i think to the callers point, there are a couple of ways.

one is yes, by appointments. we kept the fbi director appointed by george w. bush, bob mueller, a repeated republican appointee. and then we appointed james comey who was also a republican. ray lahood was appointed. to thewas appointed veterans affairs. gregy to appoint judge through the commerce department but ultimately he did pullout at the end because he saw the direction it was going. another important point, the health care bill, everybody forgets that it has become so contentious.

on as actually paste republican idea passed by mitt romney. provided universal health care. single-payerrsue a system.ed we had a republican thinking when you had a system in place -- mitt romney promoted that plan and he had to tie whyelf in knots to explain the same plan he was for as governor was terrible now that obama did it as president. in this opportunity.

trying to find the common ground , we see that happening now. and you are right to be frustrated. it is enough to say to democrats that you have to work with republicans, they have to work with you. host: let's go to nick, next. caller: i am a retired, disabled veteran. awould like to ask your guest little bit about the robert mueller investigation. it has been over a year. either there is nothing to the this is the most incompetent investigating team with $18 million and 17 people. isn't it time for a second special investigator or special

counsel to be appointed to look into the doj and fbi stuff? because whether you like him or trump i think president is the best president we have had in the last hundred years do, because of -- so if allegations cooperationking for with democrats, quick looking at the false negatives. treason orshould be conspiracy to commit conspiracy. he is my president. along with millions of other people. i want him to get the job done. i am tired of this. guest: thank you for your service to the country. hadnoller -- bob mueller

nothing to do with the appointment of the special counsel. what happened was that jeff assions recused himself and republican trump appointee, rob rosenstein appointed bob mueller to the special counsel. a firmer appointee of joy shall be bush. so this isn't an investigation being run by nancy pelosi. mans an investigation by a who was the attorney general -- four, again, on behalf of a republican led justice department. inis important to note that , we let the rule of law run its course. and to suggest that nothing has come of the last year or so of the investigation -- there have been more indictments of people in this investigation than anyone i can remember.

you have the president former national security adviser, the campaign chairman and a number of others who have very been indicted. the campaign chairman is in prison as we can now. so it isn't as if they are not finding crime. keep in mind that some of these haves -- some people immunity. they reached plea agreements. so the notion that this has uncovered nothing? it has uncovered a lot. some of it isn't even special counsel are -- special counsel findings. it is the fbi or other things. i think that what the stakes here is that it is a nonpartisan principle. is the rule of law in the any powerdependent of including the president of the united states? whoever is president russian justthat he can't

arbitrarily shut that down. and i don't know what robert mueller is going to find. but i do believe that you don't interfere in an ongoing investigation of an important matter. people would like to move on, i think whether or not russia interfered with our election in collusion or coordination with the trump affect the outcome, that is an important question. not just because criminal activity may have taken place but because they will do it again. have saidn appointees they expect russia to interfere in the midterm election and the general election. it was always the republican party that wanted to stand up to russia. that was ronald reagan and john mccain. so i understand the frustration but they're always need to be investigations. citizen, why would we not want to get to the bottom of what happened?

why would we not want there to be some capacity for bob mueller -- let him do his work. it can't go on forever. but let him come up with the full story. and then people can judge for themselves and hopefully our legal system can do the final justin -- the final judgment. twitter, "what should democrats message should the midterms be?" as a basic matter of politics, let's face it. in thetend to vote midterm elections against something. we experience that in 2010. we saw that with republicans in power. and in the presidential

election, you have to have a positive, affirmative agenda. to just oppose trump. so i think that democrats candidly are going to mobilize a lot of voters through opposition to the agenda emanating from trump. i think they can be clear about the values they stand for and what they prioritize. expanding greater health care and trying to fix and reform the immigration system, trying to affect the immigration growth -- i think the policy side is the biggest thing they have done, waysfrankly, has a lot of to help the american working people. we help the working people on health care and other issues that will unify the party in midterms will be opposition to anmp but then there will be important pivot to say, you know what we are against and what we

stand for. here is the agenda we take into the 2020 election. it is you won't defeat him by running against trump. you have to run for something. .ost: we go to jeff thank you for taking my call. do you think that the obama administration should have less forceful on trying to get the ach through? because it seems like when they put it through as soon as they got into office, it seemed like it caused backlash from the republican party. it got in and punch them in the nose and they didn't recover and then they became obstructions. trump's first thing was to try to get rid of the ach so -- so

the aca. do you think they should have been less forceful? what do you think will be the one policy issue that is going to try to bring both parties together? guest: at a minimum, we misjudged how difficult the aca would be. i remember we came in and we get the stimulus for the economic crisis and that spring we pivoted to health care. the feeling was that it would be a few month-long process. frankly, it ended up dragging on for almost a full year and consumed the political debate. and we, at a minimum, deftly underestimated the opposition and the time it would take. there were priorities we didn't get to in the first two years that we still hear about from certain constituency groups which i am sympathetic to.

like reform. i didn't work directly on the health care bill. i think we misjudged the difficulty of getting that through. we had trouble with democrats -- joe lieberman cast a deciding vote against the concept of having a public option for the aca which extended things by several months. so i think we were guilty of misjudging the time it would take. and the time it would evoke. to your question, i think them for structure is the obvious choice. country, we have enormous infrastructure need. transportation needs. roads, bridges, railways, airports. a significant amount of jobs .ould be created

there are different ways and models with conservative ideas to finance and infrastructure bank. how much of that comes from spending and how much comes from the private sector. i think there is a clear consensus. and it is important because as technology stands, trade is not what employs workers, it is automation. findve to work hard to demand. whole industries will be what doug i automation. on aing out consensus world where technology takes those jobs away, that is where i would like to see our jobs -- see our parties work together. host: ben rhodes, what is next

for you after the book? i'm going to do a few different things. i still work with obama a little bit. i will travel with him to south africa next week. somewhere -- help him with international work. i have an organization that does deal with the progressive national security debate. so politics and writing and seeing where things lately. host: do you think you will see the former president on the campaign trail? guest: he has taken a low profile. but he will be out there >> wednesday morning, jeffrey

peck on the process of confirming a supreme court nominee. then, democratic delegate stacy plaskett of the virgin islands talks about the russian investigation. and a former fbi agent has upcoming testimony. republican congressman francis rooney on president trump's meeting with nato leaders in brussels. watch "washington journal" 7:00 eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> wednesday on the c-span networks, the house returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern for morning our live on c-span. at noon, they take up legislation sponsored by a congressman on fisheries management. on c-span two the senate continues work on a number of judicial and executive nominations on the schedule. at 10:00 a.m., officials from briefate department lawmakers on u.s. interests in latin america and the caribbean.

that is live on c-span three. in the afternoon, the acting administration of the epa andrew wheeler addresses staff at the washington headquarters, and the senate finance subcommittee looks at paid family leave. >> now to the washington institute to hear from lieutenant general michael nagata. he directs strategic planning at the national counterterrorism center. sincecusses strategy 2001. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am matt. i have the pleasure of directin