necessarily make them skeptical of u.s. allies. i think working hand tunited kingdom, with france, germany, are minded countries obviously not opposed to this. when it comes to institutions like e.u. or u.n. for publication you can view online if you want to read the work of >> we had planned to bring you live coverage of a discussion about gun violence from georgetown university. due to technical problems, we but wet view that live, are recording it, and we will have it for you later on the c-span schedule. coming up in about 50 minutes, we will be live with a ,iscussion of privacy concerns surveillance and data use from governments and corporations, including the use of facebook

data by the political research firm cambridge analytica. that is live at 630 eastern here on c-span. in the meantime, here is more from today's "washington journal " discussing the senate. w, ira shapiro, the author of "broken: can the senate save itself and the country?" he also served as the former chief of staff for senator jay rockefeller. that morning. -- good morning. a little more on your background, not only your job, but the things you involved yourself in. senatei worked in the for about 12 years for a number of democratic senators, although as an internon it for a republican senator nearly 50 years ago. i had a long love of the senate. i was in the majority and the minority, committee staff and personal staff, and leadership staff, and worked on things as

diverse as the ethics code to metro funding to foreign intelligence surveillance act. 12 wonderful years. five -- the first five in the majority. minority.n the host: as far as the process, how does that differ from the house, and why is that important? guest: i talk about what we used mycall the "great senate" in first book, and then i renamed it out there mike mansfield, who i think was the greatest senate leader. the senate has always, at its best, worked in a bipartisan way. because of the general wire meant that you needed a super majority, it was the place where the parties came together to reconcile diverse interests. describeddale once the senate, at its best, as the

mediator. this is where we bring together the diverse interests of this .ountry and find common ground that is what has been lost over a long period of time. host: that leads to your present conclusion. and your title, you describe it as "broken." what makes you come to that conclusion? guest: that is the least controversial point you can do it. frankly, everyone agrees the senate is broken. the senators cannot stop talking about how broken it is. they give speeches, write articles, write books are the only thing they have not done is fix it. host: in terms of how is it broken, give specifics. guest: sure. basically, what has happened in recent years -- not so recent, but particularly the last decade, senate leaders used to work together. it was an obligation to work together. they were a leadership team.

over the last 20 years, and accelerating over the last 10, senate leaders became tribal leaders. they led -- the democratic leader let the democrats, the republican leader led the republicans. that is not the way the senate is supposed to work. ritariane is a majo institution. it works that way. by the senate, the leaders have the obligation to come together and make it work. mcconnell team failed that test. host: we will expand on that. i invite people to call in and talk to our guest about his book. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. sweet as that @cspanwj. leader mcconnell then. what is his role in this? guest: senator mcconnell, if you

define power in terms of the ability to a cobbler your objectives and prevent your opponents from accounting there's, nobody has been more powerful than senator mcconnell. he has been very effective. but that is as a republican senate different from a leader, where you're trying to bring people together and a copper something as a nation. if you go back to 2009, when barack obama was coming into office, and we were on the verge of teetering into the second great depression, that was a moment when leaders would usually come together and say we have to deal with this national economic emergency. that was not what happened. senator mcconnell led the republicans in opposing the economic stimulus that was vitally necessary to start as back some kind of recovery and depressed -- and prevent the depression. inn i cite his strategy

doing that, he lays it out in his own 2016 memoir. that is not what senate leaders are supposed to do. that was a moment where you would have seen the president and the leaders in congress come together to work for the country. host: we saw the passage of this large on the bus bill. -- omnibus bill. is there a case in that bipartisanship can be done? some cases, some bipartisanship can be done. in this case, the public is that republicans want to enormous increases in military spending, the democrats wanted domestic spending. so it was possible, on a transactional basis, to do something. if you look at the failure on immigration or look back to 2017 at the repeated efforts to repeal the affordable care act without hearings, without

markups, without amendments, that is a failure of the senate. the senate was not supposed to work in that kind of partisan way. host: a leader mcconnell's case, work inasier to politics when you have the white house and congress under control? guest: i have to bring up leader mcconnell, because he is a big part of senate history. he is finishing his 12th year as senate leader. he has made a mark. the question is what kind of mark it is. if you go back to the obama years, it was implacable opposition. depends on a certain amount of minority cooperation, and it was not there. majority,ets into the and he becomes a steamroller. so that things start passing, like the tax bill, with 50 votes or 51 votes, rather than a super majority. ive,as been very effect

but the cost has been high for the senate. host: again, the book --"broken: can the senate save itself and the country?" ira shapiro our guest. we have calls lined up for you. first one is from john in bethesda, maryland, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just have to disagree when you lay all the blame at mcconnell's feet. when you look at what harry reid did to the senate, he put the filibuster rule in play. he was a disaster for the country, because he would not pass any budgets. he stonewalled both the democrats and the republicans when president obama was trying to get things passed. he has been an unmitigated disaster, and his chickens are now coming home to roost. guest: well, you're making the point that many republicans do

make, and i do not believe senator reid was a successful leader. teamnk the reid-mcconnell failed the senate starting in 2005 until 2007. however, the difference is in it years, --or the obama is senator reid, for the obama years, was trying to enact their program of an elected president and reelected president. mr. mcconnell only had to oppose, and he did with rate effectiveness. -- great effectiveness. if you look back at how other minority leaders functioned, they functioned so as to oppose the president on certain things and work with him on others. i do not see any of that kind of working together that would have characterized howard baker or robert dole, the earlier senate leaders. host: was there a willingness,

as you would see it then, with current minority leader chuck schumer, then? current think the minority leader is capable of making bipartisan deals. he has a history of it. he worked very effectively in 2013 on a comprehensive immigration bill. the current minority leader is dealing with an unusual situation, namely the trump presidency, which provoked massive resistance from the beginning. so it has been a partisan situation in that regard. the thing i should say to you and the viewers is that i started writing the book in the fall of 2016, when i believed that hillary clinton would be president and could not govern unless the senate changed. so my book was not about donald trump. it was not about any particular

person, although senator mcconnell does loom large in it, because he has been such a force . the long-term decline of the senate created a situation where people looked at washington and said "it is not working." "i am willing to try an outsider because the senate is failing us." host: in february, senator schumer spoke at the mitch mcconnell center about the condition of the senate. i want you to listen to what he says and get some thoughts on it. [video clip] >> we have shown the senate can lead before. it must do so again. the house is fractured. the president is the president. it is the senate that has the potential to act as a beacon of stable leadership and progress in a political culture plate by -- plagued by division.

each senatorhere is empowered where the rights of the minority are not just respected that cherished, where the rules make bipartisanship practically a necessity is the senate. we all know what president washington called it -- cooling saucer for the hot tea of politics that can lead the senate through difficult times. if there were ever a time where politics needed a cooling saucer, it is now. that is what our history teaches us. host: mr. schapiro? -- shapiro? guest: i cannot say it any better than senator schumer has it any better than senator donnell has said at different times. in 2014. great speech

the beginning of his memoir in 2016 starts with the special role of the senate precisely the way senator schumer has described it. yet he has not worked that way as leader, so we have seen on as rammed through simple majority, and we have seen obstruction when compromise was necessary. the minority leader mentioned the rules changed -- what are the long-term effects of the on both sides? guest: the long-term effects have been distracted. -- destructive. the senate is supposed to be this cooling saucer. real butbusters were rare, when he needed the majority and the minority to get andther to get things done senators understood their obligation, when one person

could not hold up the senate indefinitely, that was how the senate used to work. without those restraints, it has become a block on the nation rather than -- it essentially has impaired our progress rather than being what senator schumer said, which is that beacon of hope and common sense that we so need anytime, particularly now. host: raymond, maryland, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. you are right if you remember, there was a day, meeting to make president obama a one term president. then, senator mcconnell used to allow his supreme court appointee to not have a hearing. guest: you are remembering some important examples of what happened during the obama

presidency. i would add one other thing -- i was kind of surprised, as i got into the book, at just how much power one person, specifically senator mcconnell, could have. one example of that is that in 2015, when he reached what he has said was his lifetime goal of being majority, all of a sudden, the senate started to function. after six years of upshur option -- obstruction, he became a constructive player, and the senate worked, because republicans and democrats were able to work together. that lasted one year and one month. then, justice glia -- scalia die, and we were thrown back into a crisis, because the senator would not allow for the consideration of an obama nominee. host: that was over neil gorsuch? guest: that was the judge garland nomination, which the

senate was not able to take on or even consider. host: in those situations, then, how do you get past those the takend what is from individual senators to make those things happen, at least a sense of bipartisanship? it requires, leaders to behave the way leaders always have. this was an unprecedented action that was taken. there has never been a case where a senate leaders said this is the eighth year of the presidency, so we are not considering your nomination. that is unprecedented. here, i am not talking about policy differences. i am talking about unprecedented heart of strike at the the institution, damage the institution. them is youavoid avoid them. you do not take this kind of acts, number one. the other thing is it is not all on the leaders. i fault the other senators for

not pushing back more. they are not pitiful, helpless victims. they have power. they can assert what they believe. they can assert the importance of their committee's work. aboutthis call him talks -- he says mitch mcconnell, the republican senate leader, needs to keep the senate in session longer so more nominees can be confirmed. he should also consider modifying the culture rules. talk about that in light of what you are seeing with other judicial nominees in the work of the senate. guest: every time the senate starts to make progress -- if you go back to 2013 or 2015 -- whenever the senate starts to move ahead because the senators know what they're supposed to on then they bog down nominations, executive and judicial. my view is they should have sat this isg ago and said

how we are going to handle these nominations. this is going to be our process two to four years from now, because we do not know who will be president. democraticr to the president, the republican president, the country. they have not done that. they have just lurched from crisis to crisis. host: from georgia, republican line. question have a quick and comment. as to schapiro, how do you feel shapiro,neral -- mr. how do you feel on the general stance of the democrats being pro-pakistani and? and my general, is watch out, because pedro might ask about your current sucks life. [laughter] guest: i do not think the current democrats are anti-israel or pro-pakistani.

i do think it is important, at this time -- as i said, i did not start writing the book covers of donald trump through the real question is whether the long decline of the senate has so weakened it that it cannot provide the leadership and counterweight to the president that we sorely need now. the senate has been diminished over a long period of time. now, we are closer to one man ruled that i can remember in my lifetime. frankly, one-man rule sets us on eight catastrophic course. host: does the diminishing of moderates on the republican and democratic side, did that play out in the modern working of the senate? does. it there is no doubt that there is a genuine divide between the parties that is much deeper than it used to be. i take that as a given. and i take as a given the fact

that the political clime is much harsher generally. but i do not excuse the senators anyway. toy have an obligation transcend that, to bring people together rather than inflame differences. frankly, they know that they are not doing the job. they talk about it all the time. that they ought to do the job instead. host: from new york, independent line. good morning. caller: i want to talk about oligarchies for a second. a small group of people have control over an institution. you have multiple senators who have dual citizenship, and you cannot serve two masters. --i am just wondering

congress also passes a budget widely want to go to war, when we bombed libya -- it is baffling how institution works now. you.: i agree with i think over the long period i described in my book, and the first section reviews the long decline of the senate, what you see is a senate that does not step up to its responsibilities over time and loses its authority. it sacrifices public confidence, and it sacrifices its self-confidence. then, after the long decline, it and becomes aive partisan and divided institution. you can see, though, when the senate actually steps up to its responsibilities and pushes ack, so that last year, by

98-2 vote, they agreed to put sanctions on russia and to tie the president's hand so he could not take the sanctions off. on trade, you could see them placing back on the idea of withdrawing from nafta. so they know how to do the job. on certain issues, they do it. on other issues, they sort of stand aside and say it is too partisan, the climate is too difficult. they have to get it -- get by it. host: what do you think about that as a body able to accurately and fully look into this and come up with something as far as a report they will make to the american people? will: i think the senate serve the american people by making sure that the russia investigation is full and fair. by that, i mean what senators

warnersenators burr and ahead.ng, working i also think the senate would intervene strongly if the president decided to fire special counsel molar -- special counsel mueller or rod rosenstein. finally, i believe if the report of mueller is a harsh report, i believe the judgment of individual senators will prove an important part of how the nation reacts. host: our guest formerly has a long career in the senate and is looking at the current workings of it in his assessment of it, the title --"broken: can the senate save itself and the country?" ira shapiro joining us for this discussion. becky in massachusetts, go ahead. caller: my comment, or question, is about the comment made as far

as the justice and it being justiceented that garland was not put forth -- i am sorry, i do not speak that well, and i apologize for that. i think thatime, it was very unlikely that anyone figured that trump would get in and that a conservative justice would be put forward did it was more likely that hillary would be the person who would get to choose the justice. be put forth in the seat. i think mcconnell, it really was taking a chance. office,ld be person in on their last year, be able to

make changes that are going to affect long-term. host: thank you. guest: i think you make a good point, that many people thought hillary was going to win the election. nonetheless, president obama, in his last year -- early in his last year -- had the right to nominate and expect the consideration of a supreme court justice. no other president has been denied that right. 30 years ago, ronald reagan thenated anthony kennedy in eighth year of his presidency to be on the supreme court. ronald reagan's nominee thought votes,s -- got 97-0 confirmation, because he was a capable, moderate, conservative and has proven to be that kind of jurist. judge garland would have been a

supreme condition to the spring court and should have rain considered. host: you deal with clarence thomas, robert bork. what does history tell us about supreme court selections? guest: history teaches us a lot. one thing that democrats and republicans will always debate -- when did the institution start going down? bork, thomas, etc.? standpoint, what history teaches is what the authors of how democracies die really called forbearance. important. is so you do not nominate the most extreme conservatives you probable -- possibly can. you nominate people who can attract and generate broad support. nomination wask a mistake, and i think how word baker thought asked howard baker

thought it was a mistake. he was chief of staff for the president then. i think clarence thomas was a mistake, even before the anita hill revelation, because he was not all that qualified. happenedsidering what with neil gorsuch, what is next? guest: it is interesting. we have heard talk about retirements, and we do not know whether justice kennedy or anyone else will be retiring. but i think this is a place where the senate should push back. advise and consent is what they are supposed to be doing. if a number of senators who were republicans went to the president and said we are only going to confirm a moderate conservative who can get 60 or 70 votes, that would make a difference. the president would say, i do not need 60 votes, there is no more filibuster.

those senators would say, actually, you need sick steve votes, because we are not going 60give you 50 -- you need votes, because we are not going to give you 50 for the wrong nominee. host: from chicago. -- an: i have a comment extremist solution given your diagnosis. you mentioned trade and immigration. if the senators came together. that is what rove the people who voted for trump -- that is what drove people who voted for trump nuts, that people like tillis and rubio and durbin would work together. workerson new foreign -- the gang of eight lp this is why people do not like the senate. if the senate would align more with the people who directly voted for them, maybe there would be more functionality.

perceive that senators are bought off by special interests, like the chambers of congress. my question is are you suggesting we should repeal the 17th amendment? we've well, lok, obviously, over a long period of time, shown how difficult it is to reach agreement on immigration. some in the country are disgusted with the senate because they think they are wrong on immigration. others are disgusted because they cannot take action to protect the dreamers, for examples. that goes back to the basic division. i would say a lot of people in the country are disgusted with the government that does not solve problems. if you look at the plummeting public confidence in the congress, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they see the congress not accomplishing that nation's business.

if you had seen congress come together on economic stimulus or seen congress come together on health care reform, you would have a different feeling in the country about the congress. host: can i ask you about the influence of special interests in the senate? guest: one of the things we heard from the march last week is the nra. how much sway do they have over the senate? guest: the nra has had much too much sway over the senate. the nra, the republicans, have become very much indebted to the devoted to slavishly the nra. the real question is whether the wonderful and strong action of the students, parkland and others, what we saw in the march, a commitment to change the debate on guns, the commitment to not only march but to organize and influence the

election and have a turnout of people saying enough is enough on guns, whether that can change republicans' attitudes or vote them out of office if they do not change. host: senator rubio is one who spoke to students. we asked about influence. he responded. this is according to the huffington post saying the influence of these groups not -- comes not from money, it comes from the millions of people who agree with the agenda, millions support the nra. does he make a case? guest: every poll i have seen suggests the an array has supporters, and the other side, those who want to limit assault weapons, far exceeds the numbers of the nra. it is true the nra has influence. it has influence because of money and because of single interest voters who very much agree with the position that he is describing.

but i think senator rubio, who decided to run again for the gunte because of an earlier incident in florida, should really think about what his position is on guns and, out more strongly than he has. i think he is basically broken with the people that he said he was going to be representing. cheryl,e more call from lancaster, california, democrat line. caller: thank you. i thought i was on the independent line, which is a sign that you just know i am not either one. however, more leaning towards republican. this is why i think books written in 2016 have a lot of importance. however, it seems a little old now that we are actually moving along. everything he is saying is true. being independent, i understand i can choose -- i can be the

decider of which way to lean. that is -- that kind of clears up all of that. i see this in congress working now. it was a different story. as far as republicans, there is going to be a strong -- strong supporters, always. independents -- my main point would eat how can you update your book -- how -- be how cannt would you update your book? even update it to the current trump administration -- host: thank you. guest: thank you for that comment. part one of the book describes the long decline up to the election of donald trump. deals with the first year of the trump residency and how the senate deals with him up until october. so it is more current than you

might think, and i encourage you and others to look at it. host: what is the best way for the senate to go from broke into unbroken in your mind? up on they need to step the important issues of the time. the important issues of the times are likely to include special counsel wheelers -- counsel mueller's report. they also need to push back on potentially catastrophic foreign policy, where we could end up with the president and john bolton, his new national security adviser, looking at war in north korea or iran. richard hoss, the chairman of the council of foreign relations, said we have a president who is waging political war against mueller, economic or against china and

our trading partners, and maybe real war. the senate has to push back against that. we do not believe in one-man rule in this country. host: the book is "broken: can the senate save itself and the counun >> tonight on landmark cases, join us for gideon v. wainwright. a petty thief spent his time in jail studying the law. he challenged the state of florida, which denied him access to an attorney. >> the next gate is state of florida versus earl gideon. are you ready for trial? >> the state is ready, your honor. >> defendant, are you ready for trial? >> i am not ready, your honor. >> did you plead guilty by reason of insanity? why are you not ready? >> i have no counsel. >> it went on to establish a broader right to counsel for criminals. examine this case in the high

court's ruling with the 43rd solicitor general of the u.s. who served during the george w. bush administration and a partner at the kirkland and ellis law firm. and a professor of law and andtical science at yale, visiting law professor at the university of pennsylvania law school. watch live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. landmarkcases has background and the landmark cases companion book, a link to the national constitution center's interactive constitution, and you can download the podcast at c-span.org, or from your podcast subscriber. >> on c-span this weekend in primetime, tonight at 10:00 eastern, bill gates talking about his foreign aid agenda and the federal budget.

>> we need to partner up with all the daughters to after thing -- it is absolutely miraculous in terms of holding that disease in check. vaccines. >> tuesday at 8:00 eastern, perspectives on gun control from the march for our lives raleigh. wednesday and eat :00 p.m. eastern, former white house unification director anthony scaramucci is interviewed by democratic political consultant bob shrum. justen he got the job, like building a condominium or just like building a golf course or developing a television show, he said ok, i've got this job. i've got to go down to the swamp. i have to drain the swamp. i have to hire people who understand the swap. what he has learned is you will not drain the swamp hiring swamp monsters. >> thursday, journalists on their experiences anin mosul.

>> i am trying to get you to care about someone who was born in a different country, has a different color skin than you did, a totally different background, and tried to make you care about their lives and understand the parallels between yours and theirs. >> former reagan advisor and advocate for trickle down economics. >> it is really, really true there are consequences to taxation. and those consequences are the same across the whole spectrum. you cannot tax an economy into prosperity, period. >> this week in primetime on c-span. minutes we will be live with a discussion on privacy concerns raised by surveillance and data used by governments and corporations, including the use of fack