nuclear posture review. you can see that tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's history series landmark cases returned this month with a look at 12 new supreme court cases. each week historians join us to discuss the constitutional issues and personal stories behind these decisions. monday february 5, live at 9:00 p.m. eastern and to help you follow all 12 cases we have a companion guide written by veteran supreme court journalist tony morrow. the book cost 8.95. to get your copy go to c-span.org/landmark cases. >> next, iraq shapiro, a new book on the us senate and joined a panel at the brookings institution to discuss partisanship in the senate.

>> let me try to call this full have stored or, if i may. welcome to brookings. my name is bill gholston , senior fellow here in governance studies.

thanks so much for coming and welcome also to the people who are watching this event live on c-span. today's topic is the past, the present and possible future of the u.s. senate. the location of this discussion is the publication of ira shapiro's second book on the senate. this one entitled "broken: can the senate save itself and the country" those of you who read his first book on the senate's will know how passionately he reveres the senate as an institution and will not be surprised to learn how distressed he is by what he describes as its precipitous decline. this topic could not be more timely. we are just days from

the expiration of yet another short-term continuing budget resolution and perhaps even more pertinently from a promised open senate debate on us immigration policy. will the promise be kept? and if it is, will today's senate be up to the job of an open deliberation on the most burning domestic question, which is more than domestic in its implications facing the country. when it comes to the study of american political institutions, there are two kinds of scholars. type one, people who have been framed in academia, when trained in academia and in many cases who study american

political institutions using the tools, the concepts, but categories , the empirical techniques of political science and we here at brookings are committed to the proposition there is much to be learned about american political institutions through the practice of that trade. but, there is a second way of studying american political institutions, the scholar practitioner or the practitioner scholar. ira shapiro is the latter. he began his government career, i will let the number out of the bag just a little shy of 50 years ago as an intern to the late great republican senator jacob javits. among and i stress the word among the steps in

his distinguished practitioner career he served as legislative legal counsel to the great environmentalist senator gaylord nelson. he served as counsel to the master of the senate rulebook majority leader robert byrd. as chief of staff to senator jay rockefeller. and in addition to his senate service he has occupied senior positions in the office of us trade representative during the clinton administration and if memory serves attained ambassadorial rank in one of those positions. his first book on the senate was published in 2012. updated version with a new preface by the author appeared recently and in four hands popular culture, his first book on the senate

appeared on frank underwood's desk during season two of "house of cards". so, let's me now tell you what's going to transpire in the next hour and a 25 minutes. for about 25 of those minutes i run-- trent three-- ira shapiro will present the main themes of his book and then we will hear from molly reynolds, a fellow in our governance study program. she is the author of "the brookings book: exceptions to the rule, the politics of filibuster limitation in the u.s. senate" which will indicate why she's the perfect commentator for this book. after molly delivers her commentary we will convene on the stage for

about 15 to 20 minutes of moderated conversation after which were the last it will be your turn, questions from the floor and responses from these two wonderful scholars. as always, please quiet your cell phones, but that doesn't mean turning them off necessarily and it certainly doesn't mean you can't use them for those interested in tweaking about this event is #us senate. without any further preliminaries, on with the show. ira, the podium is yours.

>> i couldn't have more generous introduction than the one bill gholston gave me. i think bill for not only that introduction, but for organizing this event, for moderating this event. i don't have enough time to go into bills of various credentials, so i won't except to say that no one else is a political theorist and philosopher, policy analyst, teacher and a scholar and has served at the highest levels of government and so we all get a great deal of wisdom from bill always and particularly i never

miss his weekly "wall street journal" call and. i'm glad to be here with molly reynolds. i don't know molly that well, but for important book is very well timed as you will hear from her comments and given my loose mastery of the senate rules i have decided to defer to molly on the whole rules question. bill did make one point that's a little sensitive. for a couple of years i have been planning to advertise my book, the new edition of my old book by using the reference to "house of cards". somehow that doesn't look as good as it used to. [laughter] i wasn't sure this panel would draw such a good audience and it's wonderful to see a spattering of old friends and it's wonderful to see a lot of people who i don't know. donald trumps extraordinary and dangerous presidency so dominates our landscape

that sometimes it's hard to focus on anything else. that's particularly true now with the crisis at hand as the trump white house and house judiciary committee are on one side and the fbi and justice department and import institutions are under attack. we wait to see whether the president may force the resignation or fire people, special counsel robert mueller, fbi director christopher wray, rod rosenstein, so i thank you for taking the time to come to a panel that doesn't have trumps name in it. as bill said, i have had a long senate career and a deep attachment to it. there is a place that sparked my original commitment to public service and it has been an important part of my life now, for almost a

half-century. there were people that served longer than i did. i was there for 12 years actually working when i went back and people have served longer into dunmore, but i had an unusual tenure because i spent five years in the democratic senate of the late 70s and then six years in the republican senate's and one more year when it flipped back, so i have seen the majority and i have seen the minority. i've dealt with a lot of different issues and so i think i have some-- possibly something to offer on this subject, at least. so, the first book i wrote i started writing in 2008. i was depressed about the long decline of the senate and that's why a started writing the book at a time when the exciting presidential campaign involving barack obama, john

mccain, hillary clinton, sarah palin, what is a great exciting campaigns of all times. i was writing the book, hoping that while i wrote it i would call attention to what the senate was and what it potentially could be and i wanted to try to write the book hoping i could help somehow reverse the decline, but at the same time i was counting on the presidential election. we had a new president at a time of possible hope and change, so i thought maybe the election would help it by the time i completed the book, obviously the reverse was the case. the senate was deeply mired in partisan gridlock. the narrative of my book ended in 1980, but i wrote an epilogue to try to explain what had happened after 1980 and

that epilogue, the first book kind of became the launchpad of this book and i want to say one thing that i do think is important. i wrote-- i undertook to write this book in the fall 2016, when i was absolutely sure hillary clinton would be elected presidents and couldn't govern unless the senate changed. this book wasn't a response to donald trump of this was about the fact that the senate had failed for so long and had destabilized our political system, in my opinion. lets me give you the gist of my arguments and then we will try to unpack it, sort of my elevator speech. we all know that the crisis in american democracy didn't start when donald trump became president or when he came down the escalator. our political trump tower-- our political

system has been like the proverbial frog in boiling water, slowly dying as the temperature rises. the senate is ground zero for that failure. of the political institution that has failed us the longest in the worst going back 25 years, at least. at its best the senate served in wasser-- with walter mondale's great phrase as our nation's mediator. it was the place where the competing interest of the two parties and all of the diverse interest of our country came together to be reconciled through negotiations, legislation, principled compromise. it was in "hamiltons" words the place where it happened. when the senate could no longer perform that role , when it succumbs to partisanship rather

than overcoming it the american people lost confidence and ultimately turned to an outsider. donald trump would not have become president if he was not the unique celebrity, but he also became president because of the justifiable feeling in the country that washington was failing. now, obviously i'm painting with a broad brush. in a longer discussion we would talk about the issues that attracted donald trumps voters. certainly, immigration, but today we are talking about the performance of the government and when we are talking about that, the trump presidency is the result of the polarization gridlock and dysfunction , but failure of the senate is for cause. moreover, the senate

reached a new low at precisely the moments that we needed to be at its best because we have an anime next-- inexperienced and potentially authoritarian president, so that's why my talk is entitled "the other threat to our democracy" and the failure of the senate for the failure of the senate one man bears disproportionate responsibility. it's no accident that the senate accelerating downward spiral coincides absolutely with mitch mcconnell's time as leader. i recognize that's a harsh statement. it may not even be intuitively obvious. this story is always debate the question, how much of this is the individual actions as opposed to the greater forces that are at work? certainly, many factors

have contributed to the deterioration of our senate-- about country and the politics of our country, that ideological chasm between the parties has grown. the role of money and politics particularly since citizens united, the impact of the 24/seven cable tv gerrymandered districts, people picking their own news sources, in fact their own facts. in america, over the last 30 years our politics have been uniquely undermined by the combination of the permanent campaign where there's never time for governing, only preparing for the next election and the politics of personal destruction where some superb political minds devote their time and talent to pull testing what messages and what votes can destroy their opponents and then designing a campaign as

to do so, so there is a lot wrong with our politics. senator mcconnell's defenders would say he's just a very skilled politician who has adapted to the reality and reflects the realities of today's politics. in fact, one of his best friends the late senator bob bennett of utah praised him in 2010 for understanding exactly what happened to the senate from goal to mcconnell. think about that for a moment. he understood what happened from dole to mcconnell. in other words it's a partisan time and we need a partisan leader. there's no time for statesmanlike bob dole. the argument doesn't wash for me. many people even senators get away with the claim that they were victims of their times

or merely following orders, but senator mcconnell has earned a substantial place in american political history. six terms in the senate, almost 12 years as minority and majority leader. mitch mcconnell doesn't reflect america's political climate. he has shaped it. now, my view of the senate obviously is that senate leaders really matter. they really matter. looking back over the history of the modern senates, we find occasions when leaders put their indelible mark , not only on the senate, but on the politics and the government at the time trick of course, the most famous example is lbj. master of the senate, lyndon johnson. robert caro's master of the senate and lbj did an extra new job of dragging the senate into

the 20th century. it was a reactionary institution before lbj and he made a great difference with his incredible force-- he was a force of nature, incredible energy. he used all the power he could to overcome what the senate had been before because before lbj the senate was dominated by southern committee lead chairman and was described as the only place where the south did not lose the civil war. of the south's unending revenge upon the north for gettysburg. so, johnson did everything he could in caro's book describes how we got the first civil rights act through, a modest measure, but the first. johnson wore out his welcome in the senate quickly, actually. people got tired of his overbearing nature. they were tired of him. when he accepted the vice presidency from

president john kennedy people were surprised. johnson was-- thought it was the only way to become a president for a southerner, but also knew his days in the senate had passed. rules, the political historian wrote the senate, lyndon johnson was a noisy summer storm that rattled the windows of the upper chamber and then moved on leaving few traces. he seemed a towering figure at the time, but his vision of the senate about the senate limited his impact on which is interesting. to understand the senate, what it was, but what is capable of, what we have lost you have to go back to the last great senate of the 60s and 70s. i now call it by a better name, mansfield senates kirk mike

mansfield, professor of ancient history was perhaps the most unlikely senate majority leader. although, widely respected for his intelligence, honesty, intellect and knowledge of the world mansfield had no desire to be the majority leader. when john kennedy became president, the president-elect asked mansfield to be the majority leader and mansfield did not want the job, but he exceeded kennedy's request. mansfield made clear he would be a different leader. he had a different personality and believed in a democratic senate were all the senators were adults and all equal. he believed in the golden rule and acted accordingly. under his leadership, all of the senators had responsibility. everett dirksen and others did not think it could work. can't work without a strong leader after johnson and quickly the

senate bogged down. mansfield was under so much criticism he prepared a speech announcing, explaining his concept of the senate leadership and he announced he would. he never gave it was put in the congressional record. mansfield demonstrated his leadership by helping to get the civil rights act of 64 through lyndon johnson knew something about the senate and called mansfield to downtown and said, basically you got to break the southern filibuster by wearing them out because richard russells olden alan allender has cancer and mansfield said i'm not going to do it that way and so he told them how he was going to do it and they had a two-month debate and he never did anything like that. mansfield and they went

on from that and passed the 64 act. then they went on from that to the greatest period of productivity. mansfield created a senates based on trust and mutual respect, bipartisanship was second nature. we all knew that that's the way the senate works. the senate could-- senators would battle over important issues and then strike their compromises and go out to dinner together. mansfield senate was extended by robert load howard baker for another eight years. the air is filled with talk about watergate, understandably. if you look back, the great senators were therefore watergate. mansfield launched the watergate committee with the unanimous vote of the senate two months after richard nixon got 49 states.

robert byrd and howard baker played similar positive roles in watergate, but mansfield, bird, baker, these people were great senators during watergate because they were great senators all the time. they didn't change from year to year. it didn't matter who the president was on whether they were in the majority or the minority .. it started somewhere late '80s or early '90s. you can see it and there is a long decline. then all of a sudden there's a second stage of decline and this decline goes like this and goes

like that and then that coincides with the arrivals of harry reid and the democratic side and mitch mcconnell on the republican side. they inherited a senate that was in gradual but unmistakable decline and they had the experience and the application and they had the opportunity to address that decline and rebuild the senate. instead, they became in the words of journalist steven collins, the terrible trends of dysfunction.

they both used arcing procedures to slow and throttle the promise of others rule. their supporters would argue about which one was worse, never which was better. under their leadership the long decline accelerated precipitously and their joint legacy would be a broken senate but the responsibility was by no means equal. obviously, not since we were tired, but not while he was there either, so let me turn to

senator mcconnell for a moment. i believe this and tendency to misunderstand them after all this time. they've been there so long he's in institutionalist really. a tough partisan but marred it under and moderate relative this of the madness that has infected the public party since newt gingrich. i see them differently than that. i regard them as the premier

strategists and tech of our era the toughest negotiator. unfortunately, he's used the power and his political skills solely as a partisan never as the leader of the senate which requires collaboration the other leaders in the party. we'll get into the discussion let me give you to pick examples. in 2008 the metastasizing subprime mortgage crisis brought down lehman brothers and

triggered a financial crisis. to the guider, two other people went to be with the leaders and they said if we don't act now will have an economy by monday. mcconnell plays a very strong role and he steps up immediately and stands the urgency of it. he helps the senate get the smallest distillation of pass. when the house with the feckless performance rejects the legislation mcconnell goes to

the senate floor and guarantees the senate will come through and they do come through in the house we versus themselves and we get the legislation which was sorely needed. he takes pride in it, as he should. three months later january 2009 nothing has changed except there's a new president, barack obama. the crisis has spread from wall street to main street. only government action can make up for an economy that has lost three quarters of a million jo jobs. mcconnell's against anything. new president is more worried about the president's approval ratings than he is about the

jobs and the people there losing. he opposes it and tries to defeat it and snow, banks, collins, the inspector and the recovery goes ahead. i cannot conceive of another senate leader that would conceive lead that way. six years of adamant obstruction to obama and then he finally becomes majority leader, januare changes overnight and the legislation starts moving forward, most in? nothing except the principle of instruction became a

constructive force. for one year, one month and then in february 2016 senator mcconnell says he will not consider any nominee of barack obama and all of a sudden we plunge back into bitterness. in 2017 with the republican. there is no precedent of the way the so, you recall but no committee action form and we were done with healthcare and comes back with it two weeks later. does it a third time in as a shoot is not accurate. -- reporting on senator

mcconnell's notables in 2014 when he describes going to run the senate if he ever gets the lead, jonathan of "the new york times" writes mcconnell betrayed read senate vote apocalyptic wasteland, ruled by dictatorial autocrat despised by allies and foes alike. was a been looking all because he perfectly captured the senate four years later. i will say it was in i recognized a bleak picture, a second threat to democracy,

wasn't tough enough? yet perhaps ironically i find myself still relatively optimistic and that is relative to everyone else left my say it is i believe of the senators up there sides of the aisle know what the senate is supposed to be. hate the institution they are serving and now. tries to change it and they will, if can constitutional crisis we think, i will see familiar faces step up and some

unexcited hero. in our country's first power in our political system guarantees that our lead will always be difficult but it should not be possible. the lubricants base engagement, and work hard to explore the possibilities of common ground. that is good faith not one year out of ten years, not when the leader feels like engaging, we need people who don't make everything a political calculation and people that actually put the country first.

i stopped. i've used two minutes more of my time and will have the discussion. thank you. [applause] good morning everyone. for someone to think and ira for inviting and to provide thoughts on ira's book. as a book on the senate on my own warning in frustrating it can be to spend ira has mulling over the institution and, ira, and speak about it today. for those of you who haven't had a chance to read this book i recommend it as a rich has faced

in its effort to lebanese and to conduct site of the past 40 odd years and house numbers have risen more often not risen to those challenges. it is rare that you find a piece of writing that discusses the omnibus trade and competitiveness act of the clinton impeachment and i rub it off in more in this book. in bill's open that there are two kinds of people. he said ira is one model and i am of the other. remarks today did what i'd like to do is spend time reflecting thoughts of my own about what i see as the primary driver and

toward the end of turn to key areas that i think we need to focus on going if the senate will go going forward. ira, if you in the senate rests within senate leadership. does up where he says the senate's inability to overcome parties is that leaders make about how to run the senate and use senate that have contributed in which we find ourselves but i wanted about the environment those leaders found themselves in.

for small. on which i refocuses the eloquently the press spends time discussing the degree to which we seen the disappearance of moderate republicans and of's demise much harder to achieve. one data point to illustrate this if we turn to go find this workforce measure measuring ideology the distance between most conservative democrat in the senate and the most liberal republicans in the senate have basically doubled since 1980 this still get done in the senate it continued but it's much harder to build those coalitions thing into alleges where the ideal made it much

more deeply regardless the electoral experience of individual senators has also become attached to national political, decreasing their individual and senate members of the opposite party. one of was the first time since the advent of the 20 century that in every there was a senate election so one that sailboats in the presidential race. not splitting their tickets at the same right they once were which means that senators have less of an incentive to formulate independent. for me the biggest electrodes in competition the chambers in

congress. the scientists previously and talks about how the period between the early 19th and early 19 multiple chambers public and did not have a reasonable that they would take control after the next election in 1980 majority control each election size of this heightened competition have incentive messaging activities and those help them win elections and this is especially true for minority parties. they have little incentive to make the majority party opponents look well you and pills on the floor that are intended to admit the majority

party for a while to write a piece that it knows won't become law and allies what it would do if they had more power after the next election. a great example of this is the bill that repealed whatever the election. beyond it does have also seen growing incentive for senators inside the chamber to exploit all chief political goals. my brookings colleague and her co-author made this filibuster in the late '90s and this is a new argument but it suggests a's and external audiences began reusing obstructive tactics in

the chamber senator deb. think about ted cruz decision and shut down in 2013. that use of proceeds national reputation. when senators believe there's political their procedural tools they are less likely of bipartisan legislative work. in this book looks at if he was willing to pursue an individual agenda and that behavior doesn't broader circuits and unite at the counterbalance to executive power. in the early 1970s we saw several high profiled legislation take and we saw those bipartisan majorities of

both parties some reason for together increase the legislative branch is power at the expense of the executive branch. increasingly polarizing figure in american politics and i don't just mean our current president but the presidency of institution it can be more difficult to build support for an issue on institution order to get done if the two closely identified with them. house and i will still talk about it today. in 2015 when present chris on trade promotion authority one on the staff of paul ryan, stop asking congress to give him trade promotion authority.

but nearly identifying the issue the president was making it harder to build a legislative coalition. to a few thoughts about what it would to fix the senate. here i think is due individual senators really want to gain more power of the process and there are all things individual centering institutions working. a study in it narrowly defined like what we have today. the most extreme version of this would be senator john mccain do

until the summer which is to vote against a major piece of legislation were about the process unanimous consent request and they could work together in committees for a but the point is senators wanted to try to send it they have tools to do that. the issue for me is a by and large senators don't necessarily

care i do about getting policy done close to their own preferences as they can get. to take the experience muster involving both the tax bill and healthcare urbanization move on a quick prelim process little deliberation. senators actually objected to that leadership driven process let's assume generally prefer for that operates in a morally and what would that look like?

one major challenge in implementing a more deliberate senate's initial effort to generate more up elaboration won't disappear the first sign of trouble. take for example, senate in 2015 as an example early in that year. majority leader mcconnell allowed keystone pipeline bill. senators filed nearly 300 amendments to that bill and perhaps in part because they

weren't sure just. the senate needs a fire change and practice will stick and that's harder said than done. i hate to leave things on a pessimistic note so i will note there are bright spots of cross party collaboration and for me the major challenges are available to them force leaders their work. i will stop there. [applause]

next to ira and molly for really clear, forceful presentations. since and you will not be a bonus i respond to what i take to be molly's the impact of leadership on the one hand that affect both in the senate and the incentives of individual more impressed by the impact that you are and less impressed by the impact i wondered how you

would respond to that. and i think her book which has come out to recently is actually correct there are stairs who bring people together and try to solve certain problems i have said in my that the senate rules have not been away since 1979. senators reid and mcconnell came in as working too well and what can we do have to think about it really believe that these filibusters but simply be that they were anonymous consent and to be real cold should not be temporary courtesies but permanent and there are been addressed in indeed should have been addressed somebody says rules this week to benefit us and what would it look like if we had new rules that molly makes important points and i

think points and incentives but the other thing having been in the senate during changes from democratic control i saw the senate go on functioning and i thought had good leaders and there are good leaders and they all worked together. that is how the two things were late in my mind. one thing i will say in response

to ira's response to this question procedure change first of all i applaud your degree to which we need the process, if you will and think about all the procedure now versus the future. one of the major challenges for me is how do you get to move from the current procedural situation to a different procedurals procedures that are available now to enhance the reputations how do you convince them that it is to change to a

new set of procedures was briefly which is to say one reason i believe you can do it is that i think most of the senators 75 or 80 of them hate the institution and they can't stop the senate and they have in their mind what the senate is if i do think there's a positive constituency for that change and solace in the emergence of the

cost and joe mansion bonding to the recent government may have. >> let me now invited if such. i i think it's becoming clearer and clearer to us that we were privileged to grow up and live an extraordinary to extraordinary economic times extraordinary political teetimes the role of the united states and of all the time and the

exception to the rule in our retaking as avonex ordinary. in the history of the country that created an environment desirable senate behavior that you describe was more possible than it was before or since. i know. that doesn't sound like a great institution there was a before as well as an after and to what

extent is it boom that what was possible under the most favorable that -- it's a great question and i burke first book that from 1963 in it different than any that had come. i agree with that. but do at least in your mind a model of how the senate and then you look at certain aspects of

it and see whether they could still apply i completely agree with they were all men at that time and the men who served there were unusual men to decide with you george arian institution do you want to senate where leaders work together and there's all kinds of questions and i to different

and is. >> i think the political scientists often referred to the pair that is the right way to think about it and of it i am inclined to think that that. what and certainly since the early 1980s as i said earlier control of the senate has come to profoundly affect the environment in which the senate works for the what made it

possible for there to be bipartisan and collaborative legislating in them was the persistence of both southern democrats and northern republicans and we have seen here and i think that part of what led to the demise to which we would not object to thinking about broadly in the united states and what i will now share with you the single piece of the

book and it's not anything that and all of 2002 there that the country and the senate the most momentous decision that a country go to war or not in your book you talk about the national intelligence estimate and a lengthy proposition that traction certainly chemical and biological and was pressing hard to reconstitute his nuclear arsenal. it was of the report that out of

the hundred senators precisely shocked because that had nothing to do with sense of individual responsibility on behalf of your reaction that episode and what did you take away from. >> i was appalled by it. it was an important thanks for focus on only one thing and decline of the senate over time the other in the new site the

very was made by, love and wished for. as opposed to people who seem that we've got to get behind us and move on to talking about the i found it to be a terrible abdication i'm what bird said and what others well, i think it's an interesting concept to the other arguments because it does suggest to me a backup that

senate with such an issue at stake that is whatever their position would not have filled of the opportunity to become as fully informed as possible about the decision and turned out to be the pivotal decision was it has colored domestic that is happened since and it was a decision fully half of the democratic senators and supporters. >> think that what it reflected

the tenor of the times. as a tendency to support the president even when the president and the vice president of the mission and brought a knife to go to iraq. it was a time reflection of what happened. we call the great senators jackson and fulbright but they would have read the intelligence

report. >> i will do it from here. half hour and for questions from the fluid responses from our panelist -- okay. that is undersigned. first of all do identify yourself by name position, please state that. then state the question.

there are many in this is not yes, there is a roving microphone. i feel right there. >> thank you, bill. paula stern persons, i run to thank you for your presentations question is about like the issue that was raised was in which ira

and i worked together to fill on in the 70s rights. the protest. this greatest activity and yet congressional sort of the v white house and being called so my question really to you the baby boomers that explain the aberrations something more systematic so that act to that. of and responsibility taking.

>> i will say is that involved a willingness by congress to additional reasons for itself vis-à-vis the executive branch don't think it's unconnected could be in the majority for a long time and i think that given that expectation it was safer to democrats on these questions of that act and willing of the party together to stand up to

what i have seen as an overreach by the executive branch. >> my perspective on it would be that the congressional research and authority the reaction to the them. no more not didn't johnson had overreached and made a mistake in vietnam and the senate to make up for that as to the house and itching in other ways including the budget itself.

my stamp for congress if it in any bipartisanship to be reasserting itself given the fact that out as yet. the question will be what happens when the court really hits? >> thank you very much. station. , communications. your point, to your point leadership and environment what happens when and up leaving the senate, hatch as well for a check on this current president and what happens when they leave it say is i asked us to do in my opening remarks is to think about the way we build the senate senators for themselves in the institution choose to do that after they've announced they are leaving that you just listed for us the public and senators, who have announced they were not running that i don't think anyone really thought was going to be in trouble and the flake situation is different but i think it's within the chamber and using the

chamber to resort authority vis-à-vis the exorbitant party for not seeking reelection i would say the, mccain i would add senator susan had the market model. decides for governor of maine and she decides her leaves the senate leadership in 2000 senate is functioning and goes off and tries to legislate day after day with the of washington and john.

flake you really sure looks ever written about politics. work worker from a hole in the wall, but i guarantee you would say he is leaving because it works. he is we have stifled everything and look, i need to add one thing to put my my comments are a of mitch become i came to that by studying the situation and i

don't believe individuals for i think he has played an extra ordinarily disappearing i want to basically say about it is the trump presidency almost everything else looks like. leadership of the senate it crossed way into crossed the line the way it is supposed to work. >> okay. i now see a sea of hands in

response to that. i see hansen the bacchanal tried for the better varmints. you have talked about in the 70s deals by senators without fear that they would be immediately attacked on fox for msnbc and this highly democratized media environment and deals were made head. what do you think is the implication environment in which all voices of more

well-functioning operation. >> something is in either chamber frankly and tell what committees to have long delivered if markups i don't have the answer to that question know quite where i come down that we have to think about this broader idea of asking do individual senators want the power to deal with those kinds of consequences environment for doing to open say that i don't

know the answer but i don't necessarily think that they would love the idea of attention drawn to it. >> is trying to say that it's much more difficult to be a senator now and what reasons particularly that you are citing. yet is some of them seem to manage to do it. i said to patty murray and the

model down entirely in 2016 over the garland thing producing a major education bill and it can still be done the overall environment. what we can have his people function like senators and function like senate leaders excuse for the work they are functioning now. and i to carl levin who recently retired any number of them in my

sense to the extent i have actually want to function differently although certainly everything molly says is true. the front here and i will move back again. >> excellent presentation. ralph, chief counsel to republican senators edward brooke director of the leadership conference on civil rights. and also league of ira and bill. i loved the first book but i

haven't read the second, the 1981 to 1993 was an error whether a security act or strengthening all the nature so i hear what you are sick and get back to the senators of the 60s and 80s. ninety-point of demarcation. how can we do that far electoral pod people not afraid of being

primary left? does either book get into how do we get senators gratz who want to engage provide incentives in a timely? silly, golf, and events of microsoft in 1980 and the a black together and functions i am a like mostly everyone else, identify the time that we usually either of the problem anyway. and i can't change the whole system and i support a lot of

the reforms the people that besides the fact that is where i spent my life, as you know, same excuse number one. number two, there's a big cause-and-effect question here and bill has thought about it price country leaders to respond to that and i would argue that we are opposed in part because of the leaders basically because

the people have not seen anyone come together to the republicans had joined obama in a pipe the economy would have recovered quicker and the public had more confidence. if 2009 said that healthcare proposal of his looks a lot foundation and used in massachusetts and they could've come together. there's a cause-and-effect thing that is quite profound. german, former who i adore.

[laughter] >> and now for a tough hard-hitting question. >> but i come back from an event in new orleans with a lot of people. my question, ira, you mentioned the issue is giving finance. i'd be interested in you both addressing if there was some way to get the big money, the dark

money out of politics with the that folks like senators like we were just discussing the ability of big money to mount this kind of camp. i think it is worth noting that we have also seen two varying degrees of i don't matters at all but i'm not terribly at this a major change campaign finance law even if we put on the table

today the question is how do we work with incentives to change people's behavior back yes, let me just -- >> two things. first of all, it is obviously on people's minds just that one way to respond to it is the way lisa murkowski responded to it when she lost by running an independent or third-party candidate and jeff flake who i

think could have run as an independent and that would have been one waitress funny question look, i'm giving to oversimplification but citizens united the worst decision since dred scott at both sides and sometimes the candidates with less money when and deserves enormous recognition for showing you can raise $27 million is going to i do believe is that

may be coming if the president decides to fire him for some other way will put the republican senators to the test or your donor base led by the koch brothers many people will come forward and stand up for the country. >> let me add up that is that yesterday's reforms often turn

in living with the legacy of is one and i would put on the table as a defrocked college professor for further credit i assigned the class the task of the camera system and do they fit together there is a gentleman back there had 20 minutes and he is now about to be -- yeah let me offer a slightly different hypothesis and then ask a question because

you both touched look at the leadership of the senate from thousand six elections when senator reid became majority leader and mission in the senate. people did not have the right to ask incumbent elected in 2006 his election 2014 because he never got to offer an amendment that there is something to look at their but to get to the both of you touched on the idea to

use a philip i'm going to filibuster this will come back a day off tomorrow and do our cloture votes. having to spend the night there because they don't know when the next warm calls coming will get them to put pressure on their college. we are. if you want to do it, for real purpose okay senators. uncomfortable staff even more uncomfortable because i've been in a position in a 230 in the morning. do you think that has to a real filibuster and people get back to regular order which will either. i favor of holds, not just saying but i mostly favor and consideration by which you would produce a result that 75 senators would say don't favor lurching from crisis to crisis and mcconnell did and then some rescue comes out that lasts you avoid the nuclear option by the way, it was never from rita

mcconnell and alexander. the combination of a leader driven senate with good can be made but you have to enlist a lot of people in it and get. >> i that the senate is provide ways for people to reveal that is because cloture has become way to signal how intensely a set i'm not sure that i think making people talk all the way through for individuals to be able to signal the intensity healthy for the current senate let me add one thing since i focused the intent to focus and i'm not so hot on the followers either. i don't think that andir moved o the leader driven senate without the common sense coalition or others those things matter and the senators i wrote an article in 2000 and it's up to the public in the. >> well, we have only one minute left so let me in designing our political institutions did not enter the establishment he got a party system. it's almost always been a two-party system. we've been wrestling since the mid- 1790s with the question of how the institution to james madison the assumption is will check and balance one another but when individual ambition r s attached to what medicine called the place that is a location within an institutional order and the assumption was