thank you for joining us. enjoy your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪ >> next, newsmakers with vermont senator, patrick leahy. outlinessident trump his plans for combating the opioid crisis. after that, kiersten nielsen at a senate hearing on election security. our guest on newsmakers is senator, senior patrick leahy, first elected in 1974. he is first in seniority in the

united states senate, seniormost member of the judiciary and agriculture committee, and is vice chair of the senate appropriations committee, meaning he was in the middle of the negotiations of the omnibus spending bill that the president signed into law friday. 2200 32 pages long, and it a vote of senate by 65 to 32. speaking friday, in the hour after the president's announcement, very critical of the democrats, saying the size of the bill is due to the democrats' opposition to spending more on the military and exacting concessions. >> i'd give him the benefit of the doubt. -- i was involved work and debate and negotiations for the past several weeks. it was something where republicans and democrats came passed witha bill

democratic and republican votes. spending -- wede increased spending for the military, for domestic programs, and we were able to do that as we removed the so-called sequestration. but it was a thing that was negotiated. -- it was harder than a white house negotiation because it seems like they changed their mind every 20 minutes. first, the president would not sign anything unless you put in $25 billion for $30 billion for last century's technology and some kind of wall on the border of mexico. he had given the solemn promise to the electorates that he would build a wall because mexico would pay for it. someone suggested if that was the case, why don't we just open up a bank account as the money comes in from mexico, we build the wall.

of course, we did not build the wall, and he is somewhat unhappy about that. >> let me introduce two reporters. andrew taylor from associated --ss and ezra -- from >> the president took to twitter to say democrats gave up a potentially good deal on these dreamer immigrants, daca. how close did negotiations get on that? >> they did not get close. i know the followers on capitol hill -- the president changed his position several times on dreamers. the senate leadership thought they had an agreement, and the president came up with a different point.

obviously are not going to pay a $25 billion or $30 billion ransom for dreamers. i think what we've got to do is come back and have a real debate on it, and vote a bill up or down. put everybody on the line. i think that if the house and senate actually have to vote on dreamer legislation, it will pass. they hope to do it with president trump happy, but his position has changed so many .imes, almost on a whim i know he has advisors in his administration who are totally anti-immigration. i think it could be done. people actually have votes on it. bills, butpes of big high profile issues threaten to of skier what is going on in the bill itself. you have been on the

appropriations committee for decades. you've been scratching and clawing for little increases in various programs. around, when president barack obama was controlling the white house, under a completely unified republican government, you've got an enormous increase. a virtual bounty. how does that happen? >> i was not vice-chairman back then. -- that's not the answer i should answer -- we had a sequestration and the the republican leader said his number one goal was for president obama to fail. if you make the president fail, the country fails. if you have to fight for every bit of it. i think i have numbed people. i have spent a lot of time in my pleading the capital

with republicans and democrats, saying let's go back to real bills, real appropriations bills. reflect -- of the whole country, not just a small few. -- in thiswill have past week, i've seen so many different senators in both parties come and talk to me and others, say let's go back how it used to be. i've talked to senator mcconnell, senator schumer, key republicans and democrats. andkey vote was going on, the bill was going on last night. you saw as many democrats on the republican side and republicans on the democrat side as i think

i've seen in years. that this is a sign country will actually have a voice in what is going on, it will be congress. it cannot be done by tweet from the white house. that worries me because the president, who changes position almost in one hours time. you can't plead about nuclear , imposing tariffs on this the stockat, seeing market take the biggest fall, one of the three biggest falls in all of history. i think there are enough grown-ups in both parties for the senate and house to realize that we have to keep the country stable. >> it definitely seems like there is a realization in both

process needs the to be different. there has been some talk about changing the budget process to make it run more smoothly. run more smoothly, what changes do you need to make? >> each one of the appropriations bills, bring it up and voted in committee, on the floor. technically that is what you're supposed to do. what we used to do. results were so much better. also, you didn't have wild swings of the stock market where people didn't know what was going on. businesses knew what they could plan on and government agencies could -- this white house seems disruption.s and it may be fun for the evening news. it is not good for the country, and we would like to bring back

stability. i use one example, for a number of years, what we call the foreign relations committee, not to get too nerdy about this, but it handles all of our foreign aid in the state department. by the time i was chairman and mitch mcconnell was ranking member, by the time he was chairman, i was ranking member. we always finished on time, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. i talked to senator mcconnell, we should be doing that in all of this. i think senator shelby will be the new chairman of the senate appropriations committee. >> why doesn't it work like that this year? trying to work with an unpredictable white house? >> i think it doesn't help. what we thought were some good signs, the president met with democratic and republican leadership, for example on dreamers.

within one day, it was gone. not because congress changed their position, the president did. we are going to , ande tariffs on steel then that turned out to be a catastrophic idea from the perspective of republicans. but we'll exclude these countries. these things are too complex. >> the president had a prescription today for the jump -- for the budget problems. he called for an end to the legislative filibuster and wants a line-item veto, which the supreme court said was unconstitutional. he worriesthink about whether things are constitutional. he has also called for censorship of the press, being able to sue the press if they disagree with him.

we've gone through a lot of things. arresting people and doing due process later on? governmentthe way works. that's why we have checks and balances. he's saying, i do everything right in the white house and -- how i do things in congress and the white house is irrelevant. think if weate to were doing our budget by tweet. >> any appetite for ending the filibuster? pretty welluster is gone on many things. this could have been filibustered last night. it wasn't. it was delayed by a few hours, then we basically did the filibuster by -- is gone. it struckibuster

more issues. there are times when it seems like it is being used. since we'veyears seen a real filibuster where i'vee talk on the floor been there long enough to actually see those, but they are rare. i think what i'd much rather see his us come back and say, only goals that can be done by a voice vote with no amendments is not even real legislation. come in earlier monday, stay friday if need be. i think there are a lot of people, including younger, newer members as well as those that have been there a long time, we won't see them come back that way. >> there will be probably hundreds of thousands of young people coming to washington this weekend to advocate for gun control and steeper measures to address a school shooting.

they probably have not been throughthe history which you passed an assault ban in the 90's, a\politically contributed to democrats losing congress. likeof the time, it seems congress is simply cowed by the gun lobby and national rifle association, including some politicians from your own state, at one time anyway. what can these young people expect out of congress? -- addressed the background check system, but you have expanded background checks and that doesn't seem like it. what can they expect? >> i think your indictment is correct. and it is frustrating. -- the state in the union with the least gun control of any state in the country.

with one exception, we limit the rounds of ammunition you can put in during deer season. -- protect children. if we can protective gear, we probably have a better reason to protect children -- if we can deer, we have a better reason to protect children. --addox, background check -automatics, background checks -- real background checks. leadership in the house refused to take it up. i get criticized by the gun lobby for that? of course.

i remember they say they were opposed to universal background checks. i would think that most , andcans would assume that we have to go back and try these again. i think we ought to listen to these young people, because there are other aspects, too. we have got to stop bullying in school, a major factor in this country. we've got to make sure there's a building for somebody who, if they have a concern, come forward and talk about it and have the resources to follow up on it. i'll tell you one thing -- i would be totally opposed to this. say we solve this by arming teachers. teachers have enough work to do today to teach children. i want teachers to concentrate on teaching children. if you have to have armed professionals in a school, then

make that decision. >> do think the pendulum is swinging back against the gun lobby? >> i hope so. i worry very much about any single issuelly lobbies on either the right or left. i think that has created a problem, the fact that citizens oneed -- the fact that single issue group on the right or left can have too much control a lot of it has been on the right with the koch brothers. trying to take over state legislatures, governors offices, and the house and senate. and in washington. let's go back to having actual people with a voice. and i think you see these young people are people in that sense. they don't care about the

lobbies. they care about being safe and going to school. i think of my own grandchildren, when they go to school, i want them safe. i think every parent wants them safe. ,an you imagine being a parent and you hear there's been a shooting in a school, and you go , who and find your child you will never speak to again? nobody should have to face that. we spoke a lot about domestic issues and unpredictability in the white house. i want to get your thoughts on the changes to the president's national security team, mike pompeo being replaced by john bolton. what do you think of the president's foreign-policy going with this new team? do want to know where it's going at 9:30 or 9:35? that's what is bothering me.

allies expect at least some kind of continuity. they may disagree with it, but they want some kind of continuity so they can make their own plans. i think that is going to be a problem. john bolton is not the right person to be there. nominatedhen he was to be our ambassador to the united nations? he was never confirmed, because too many republicans as well as democrats were opposed to him. person who takes a simplistic view of foreign-policy. we can't simply go to war. we saw how badly that turned out in iraq. >> you think it would be difficult for him to get confirmed? >> he doesn't have to be confirmed. the president quickly said --

pompeo will face a lot of before confirmation. considering some of his past speeches that have been looked at, the state department faces real problems in the firing of rex tillerson, probably the most clumsy handling of a secretary of state that i've seen in 40 and there are going to have to be changes their in the state department, whether he is a person to do the changes or not, i will sit down and talk with him, but i'm concerned about some of his past simplistic views of our foreign-policy. can't emphasize how important this is. we are the most powerful nation on earth. we are still the wealthiest nation on earth. , butn be a moral leader

not if we are changing our position every few days. that we have seen pushback from some of our nato allies is a concern. i will go to nato headquarters next week, looking forward to talking to some of these people. i've gotten to know them over the years, and at least in private conversations, i think we will be very open and candid. in a wavee elected election, and he witnessed several, both good and bad for the democratic party. do you see a wave this year? -- in 1970 four, the only democrat ever elected in the state of vermont, and the youngest, i was 34. i was given the nomination nobody else wanted.

i was opposed to the war in vietnam. andy member of congress vermont had always voted in support of the war in vietnam. the majority opinion in from aunt was in favor. it would be hard to find people today -- a lot of newspapers favored it. werein 1980, 12 people tired of -- only one who made it through. that was a wave election. i had the second closest election in the country. myssumed it was because of philosophy, so i called the senator who had the closest election and said barry ?oldwater, isn't art philosophy and we became very good friends after that. >> another question? >> i don't know.

, i have few elections been able to pick them very well. this one, i can't get the feel. i think it was a strong sign in , thema, senator jones gubernatorial race in virginia. but i don't know the answer. i hope it is, because i like to see our party in the majority. thene of the issues is deficit, not just discretionary spending but mandatory programs. i was wondering if you could see a political coalition that would be the right kind of combination , whether it is democrats in the senate and republicans in the house or vice versa. what do policymakers need to make those changes to make mandatory programs sustainable?

>> we need something like what we saw in the past with conservative senator -- and liberal senator pat meehan coming together to save social security. it is just one example that shows it can be done. we just put together an enormous tax cut bill that favors only of theercentages republic, possesses them -- favors them. that's not a good way to start. is it necessary? yes. toin, you are going to have tell those special interests on the right and left, tell us what you think and we will make the decision. can't be done? i've seen it done in the past. i've seen a lot less of it today. is that kind of ideological

compromise possible? >> trying to answer, i probably don't know the answer. it is less possible than it has been in the past, and that is similar issuesth of special interests. i hope it can be done. topic, you've seen -- beginning to circulate among senators to raise the idea of the legislative boost for the independent counsel, robert mueller. are you getting positive response? do you think a sizable majority would be interested in showing up? >> i think they will. lindsey graham said it would be a disaster to fire bob mueller. the only precedent we have for that was watergate with richard

nixon, which did not turn out well. this would be a very serious mistake, because the russians are trying to interfere with the united states. the russians are trying to influence us, as they are a lot of other countries. the mueller investigation may be the one thing where you had people stand up and say yes, that is happening. let's do something about it. i -- many of us are speaking out on what a bad mistake they would legislation would be difficult, because of course the president could veto legislation and you need two thirds majority. i hope that wouldn't be necessary, but if it looks like it is possible, they might do it.

we -- pass that legislation. >> senator leahy, thank you for being our guest. newsmakers is back with anna edgerton of bloomberg, andrew taylor of associated press. we just spoke with senator patrick leahy, billy democrat on the appropriations committee. a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill -- and no one seems happy with the process, though people seem to be happy with the additional money. earlyclear yet -- past so in the morning and senators couldn't read it before hand, is it clear if the winners and losers from a money standpoint? >> he said he's not happy with the process, but the process the top democrat with an norm is power. as for winners and losers, i think, as the senator alluded

to, democrats really have the republicans in a difficult spot because they were really gunning for this money for the pentagon. as the president said in his press conference, he felt a need to keep the country secure, and that was the principal reason. if the democrats knew that, they were able to insist on things that they never could get under president obama. they got enormous sums for things like community endowment, block grants, obscure endowment's most of the c-span audience has not heard of, but are really important to the people who make policy around here. the democrats did well on their domestic priorities, and denied for the most part, trump a victory on the wall. that is one of the reasons trump came out on twitter and briefly threatened to veto it today. overe government shutdown

action forred childhood immigrants -- i'm wondering, they were no player in the final legislation. what has this been about? was a long, drawnout process. the fiscal year started october 1, and now we are in march and they passed this big appropriations process. the senators said, that is not how the process is supposed to work, and he would like to go back to writing appropriations bills and passing them one by one. there were a lot of side issues that complicated that process. the republicans said they wanted to start need -- start negotiating, and earlier this year, it was daca and democrats didn't want to sign an appropriations bill because it was the only leverage they had to ensure that the docket status was resolved. that deadline got pushed back

with the court decision, that people wouldn't start getting deported until march 5. that gave them lessons to go ahead and finish the appropriations process, as painful as it was. >> calling for reform, we are already six months into this fiscal year. they should be starting on the process for the next set of appropriations. they have until september 30 before the legislation runs out. is there any appetite for reform? appropriations process, i doubt you will see success in getting it back to the way the senator described. is one of key reasons the big divisions in the republican party, a majority of the majority cannot get their numbers to sign on to the overall spending numbers, but when the committee draws up these bills, they add in all these writers, policy provisions

that senator leahy would call poison pills, so when they come out of the committee, at least some of them, there is not a coalition for that type of material. they go into the dustbin for a few months and then get picked up and negotiated in the type of negotiation we've seen. aboutd be very optimistic a fix of the appropriations process this year. there is also this -- not a supercommittee, but a select committee to work on the budget process. >> tens of thousands of young people in washington this weekend and cities around the toted states are all here express support for safer schools through gun legislation other proposals that have been put forward. what is the appetite on capitol hill? >> i think this is one of the most important domestic challenges we have right now.

it is hard for republicans to get behind any kind of gun control legislation, and push billon this very narrow tucked into the omnibus package. was basically providing support for the background check process, but even that got pushed back from republicans in conservative states and districts. even though a majority of americans might want more gun control, that is not necessarily how it is playing out in congress. you will see a very difficult coalition come together to actually pass gun-control legislation, though we could see it being a central issue in the --terms, >> i'm surprised the senator was not willing to call the elections. >> i thought he would be more forward leaning in a democratic year, yes. i'm surprised. >> thanks for being back on newsmakers.

>> night on c-span q&a, yale university law professor amy chua talks about her book, political tribes. >> we need to be able to talk to each other as americans again the evilay you are ones. it used to the people on the other side of the political divide were just people we disagreed with. now it is almost like the people who voted for the other ouridate are immoral, enemies, not even real americans anymore. because i study democracies around the world, places like libya. what is the difference between libya and the united states? libya is a multiethnic country as well. 140 different peoples. it is a failed state.

it has disintegrated because it does not have the overarching, strong libyan identity strong enough to hold the country together. but we do. this is what makes us special. >> q&a, tonight at 8:00 eastern. on monday, president trump's spoke in manchester, you have sure about his plan for combating the opioid epidemic in the u.s.. this is 45 minutes. [applause] hello. good afternoon. it is great to be with you today as we address an issue posing a major threat to our society. before i begin, i want to thank members of law enforcement for all that they do to protect us each day. [applause]