to lower emissions. if we back out it's going to send the wrong message to the world. it's going to say that the u.s. is a country that goes back on its agreement and to me it's larger than the issue of climate change, are we willing to be a constructive and good-faith partner in large effort to make sure we leave behind a habitable world for our children and grandchildren. ..

and i am humbled, truly humbled and honored to receive the support of my colleagues to be the next leader of the senate democratic caucus. >> that's the november 16 news conference where new york senator charles schumer announced that he was elected as the next senate democratic leader for the 10,015th congress. here on on c-span we are going to look back at his house and senate career and discuss the senators rise in democratic leadership and how people work with republican-led congress and the new president, present-elect nald trump. we will use a video from our library over the arc of his career in the next hour and were joined by two longtime capitol hill watchers, jennifer steinhauer, correspondent for the "new york times" and paul kane, "washington post" senior reporter. let's start with chuck schumer leadership and personality.

you mention innovative initiative for the "new york times" he has a brooklyn style of doing things. what did you mean by that? >> guest: when h you start out his career in congress he really rubbed a lot of people to run away because he is aggressive, sort of street fighter style doing business. he's very candid, very blunt, very informal and he's there in new york. so just a little different from people up on the rest of the country who are serving and certainly how people operate in washington. i think his style has evolved over the years and is become more of a trational legislative but it don't think it's lost brooklyn. >> host: what are you seeing in the evolution of the style? >> guest: what's interesting is we've had, the last few centilitercentimeters between mh mcconnell and harry reid, bill frist and tom daschle, they were not really huge personalities.

harry reid can say some things off-the-cuff that make news and make for a good two-second clip on c-span "washington journal" but it's n, chuck schumer is this big area was personality at just hills around when he walked in it. he has tried over the years to go from just beiiewed as the sharp edge partisan to somebody who is sort of wheeler dealer. he can talk to john mccain as we've seen in the last week or two about the russian investigation, but that personnel is still very much in there. that sort of full force new york, just very brooklyn view. >> host: does that personality fit and a bipartisan way quartz doesn't rub some people the wrong way? >> guest: new york has produced a lot of these big personalities, mario cuomo, rudy giuliani in different modes,

mike bloomberg and ed koch. he fits into a regional tradition that he think make some sort of nationally recognized which in a way can be helpful. it can also hurt them around the country as a cell with nancy pelosi when she became a weapons for republicans. i can see chuck schumer evolving that way. most helpful, his ability to learn from others, especially senator kennedy who was a mentor to them about how to operate within a special dissent. >> host: let's move forward. he was first elected to the house in 1980, began serving in 1981. go forward to 1993, debate on the house floor, november 1993, debate on the house floor, november 1993, then house member chuck schumer debating in favor of the brady handgun bill. here's a look. >> mr. chairman, today is the day for this chamber to join the american people in saying we have had enough.

today is the day to stand up and say enough to the boundless fever for handguns, enough to the senseless killing in every community. day after day and night after night we see the bloody madness. children kill children. mothers die trying to protect their families. parents and their children. children barry parents. you and i and everyone of us in this chamber no our neighbors, the american people are sick and tired of this insanity. my neighbors in queens and brooklyn are scared. we are all frightened for our children. we are disgusted by this orgy of handgun slaughter. your neighbors in ohio and california and wisconsin, and all over america, your neighbors are just like my neighbors. they want the killing two and and they want it now to end. and they are watching what we do here today. it is said by my opponents, the opponents of this bill, guns

don't kill people do. people have bad instincts in them. but without guns, those instincts often don't result in killing. with guns those instincts all too often do you the people of america know there are no magic pills to end violence, but they also have the good common sense to know that waiting period to workwork, and what the simple, common sense restraint of the brady bill. >> host: what did you hear from the 1993 clip in terms of his leadership on issues like gun control, and is developing oratory style? >> guest: that's the chuck schumer, the man of the house. back then and that air was actually really pretty policy specific. he served on the house judiciary committee, and the crime was rampant in new york roughout the '80s and early '90s. he took on these issues and was

willing to take on the nra on the brady bill. what you saw there though was the chuck schumer of the house of a congressional district in which gun control is an issue that he could very much take the lead on. as he became a senator and started taking over this campaign operation in 2006, 2008, he was, he was recruiting candidates are very different views of his own entrance of gun control. it's just interesting to see, it's an issue he has grabbed at times. he did in 2013 after the kinetic shootings but the "new york times" -- connecticut shootings but there's times when he pulls back from that and sees the political headwinds. >> guest: i agree. i would say the chuck schumer that would just be given before, we still heard that voice, that cadence, those emotions, when he chooses to speak on a set of four other don't think his

views, paul is right that is had a holistic view of guns as they pertain to different regions of the country. i don't think it's all personal use have it all. what's interesting is if you jump forward to 2013 to the background check bill, senator schumer was very involved in trying to get that whole thing started between brokering with them, trying to get tom coburn on board. what's interesting is when appeal started to really go south, senator schumer more or less stepped out of the process and started forecasting what would be the next big fight, which he thought at the time was more winnable fight which was the immigration fight. >> host: we will get to that. let me ask you about the house leadership possibilities for schumer, senator schumer. where was it in terms of leadership in the house? was or evea path for him to be a leader? >> guest: he was part of this, this sort of brat pack of young

up-and-coming people acting. he was living in a house that was owned by george miller, just a couple blocks from the house office buildings. dick durbin lived there. leon panetta lived there until he went into the clinton administration. they were these young turks who are trying to challenge the leadership at the time, first with speaker foley and then speak or write. they really wanted to push the envelope. what happened was 1994, the midterm losses, and you lost the majority here and he will tell you, chuck schumer will tell you that he's been in the minority in the seneca in the majority in the senate and the majority in the house and the minority in the house. only one of those four situations did he hate and i was being in the house minority. that's what he made this interlocinternal calculus of al, i'm going to run statewide. >> host: now minority leader for the u.s. senate.

first elected to the senate in 1998. only a couple couple of years later, 2001, 9/11 happens in 2001 and the following march in 2002 senator schumer and the new york delegation urging president george w. bush to sign legislation the passage for rescue money after 9/11. i want to take a look at a marc. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i can't tell you what a thrill it is to stand with the president and all of my colleagues from the delegation, the government and the mayor on such a great day for new york. nearly six months ago, mr. president, i sat in the oval office and asked you for $20 billion to help new york. today, you have fulfilled that commitment. mr. president, new york thank you. >> thank you.

spin our city and our country -- he called me ellis. that's good, i think. [laughter] >> tay it is spin up tod it is. next week, who knows? inoue, rc and her country at the time has been brutally attacked and we desperately need at the presidents helped sitting with secretary clinton and the senator from virginia, i made the pitch and honestly, mr. president, expected you to offer us 5,000,000,000 or say you would get back to us or ask for a memo. instead, the president looked us right in the eye and with tears in his eyes, tears in mind, and said new york needs help. and i said yes, mr. yes, mr. president. and without hesitation, without even flinching he said, you've got it. today depression is making good on that pledge in full, and then some. >> host: jennifer steinhauer, chuck schumer in front of the new york delegation. a real rapport with george w.

bush and presumably a lot of that delegation not real friendly towards george w. bush on other issues. >> guest: i think it's interesting. that almost feels like a history news conference. wasn't that long ago especially when i think about the incredible like we see in congress over a not to compare hurricane aid necessarily to the catastrophe of 9/11, in terms of skill and need, but at the time that was seen as a national problem that required a broad federal solution. it's very difficult to find the type of bipartisanship now. i also find it interesting to see hillary clinton in that frame. they were pretty much rivals. when sender to clinton came to the hill and i think was the process of securing that money that really helped cement the relationship was continued to go over the years. >> host: that relationship in terms of chuck schumer as somewhat like a senior new york senator to hillary clinton and

his bath went in an entirely different way. how was the relationship in congress? >> guest: they denied it at the time as the years went by and we both admit the first year to two years were really tough. it was, you know, the "new york post" assigned their congressional correspondent to write something called hill watch it every single day he wrote a hillary clinton item, which meant he wasn't fighting a chuck schumer item. they really did did, their stafs also fought over credit for things, money was gog to bridge summer, they wod battle over it. but after 9/11 and they had to work together on that issue, they really did start to bond. and later, years later they would get, they would be the two biggest your markers in the senate and they would share everything together. they would take credit for buffalo getting money or you try to get money to a woodstock meeting together.

spirit that did not go so well as i recall. >> got voted out of the bill. >> host: in his leadership role in the senate, does he hold grudges against other members? >> guest: it depends. >> host: or members of the press? >> guest: he can be in a battle with somebody and if the beach you, he doesn't have a grudge. he just happy go don't worry. he said terrible things about me during that debate but we won. he can let that go. but if he loses, if he loses that debate, if he loses that vote or that senate seat, he sitting there thinking i'm going to get him. i might be citrus and out but i am going to figure this out and i'm going to win. >> host: how do you think that will work out into 115th? >> guest: that's an interesting question because who is he most set up to oppose? obviously donald j. trump. interesting part of that is

their relationship may be one of the most fascinating and important ones to emerge in the new congress. of course it's important how chuck schumer gets along with mitch mcconnell and, of course, he can hold grudges against mitch mcconnell. particularly when, send it on both sides of the aisle are all long for the relationship between the majority and minority leader. if you have much friendly rivalry, two other positive and functional relationship as much as psible in the environment where going into i think will e important and, obviously, for members in his own party. but the schumer -don't something is a thing to watch. >> host: after the 2006 election senator schumer was chosen as head of the democratic senatorial campaign committee in 2004. why was he chosen? >> guest: tom daschle is a democratic leader. you just lost his race and so harry reid was elevated to

minority leader, and schumer had just won reelection at that point. honestly he always felt sort of underutilized by tom daschle and his team. harry reid picked up on that and just said, i'll tell you what, you've got a lot of great ideas, your political, you are great, strategist. run the senatorial committee. and he ran it with just a brutal efficiency. they want succeeds that year, almost all of them were the seating -- defeating incumbent center just pick in 2008 they picked up eight more seats. basically set up the possibility of getting the barack obama agenda through congress because it such a big super majority. it was ruthless, it was tough. he came after you on every issue possible. him and mitch mcconnell had a lingering, a lingering bitterness in 2008 after they

helped negotiate this part tarp bailout for wall street. there were people running ads against mcconnell and his own reelection over that issue. mcconnell felt that was just an inappropriate breach because they have done this together with other senators. >> host: let's move forward on that. let's go to that november 2006, after that election victory celebration and the news conference from 2006 in november. >> i want to thank my colleagues for electing me now vice-chairman of the caucus, number three in the leadership. i want to thank harry reid in particular for the great job that he has done for us. majority leader harry reid sounds really good to us, and over t next two years it's going to sound great to the american people when harry and his team show what we can do.

let me just say, our challenge has really just begun. the american public has rejected the policies of george bush and they're waiting to see what we can do. and we are going to show them that we will never lose sight of them, in terms of making there lies a better and creating a better america for the average person, and for all americans. so i am so gratified to be part of this leadership team. i want to thank harry, dick, patty, by written for their support. and i just want to promise my colleagues, all new yorkers, and all americans i will continue to work as hard as i can to make this country even a better place. >> host: jennifer steinhauer from the ne the "new york timeso there he is elevated to caucus

vice chair in addition to being head of the campaign committee. what does the vice chair do? what does that role bring to chuck schumer? >> guest: as i understand that is basically about bringing the caucus together and put the agenda together, make people get on the same page, giving people opportunities to vote against bills when they need to, bringing people together when they need you and to help the legislative agenda of the party go through. >> messaging was sort of a key facet of that job. it really was in a way that created the position to get them more power, more authority. >> host: did ty are harry reid create that >> guest: harry reid. >> as i understand it senator schumer went to harry reid and said i just want all the seats. i helped create this and i need more power and more authority to do things. paul said ruthless.

i think with respect and affection as well as schumer. the three pushes about chuck schumer better to come back i will ask anybody for money at any time, day or night. he will go to schenectady in the morning, awful in evening and back to washington. he really works hard for democrats. i think is a big part of why he was awarded. >> he was taking some the things he had done, lessons he learned up in new york and just sort of teaching other senators sort of his technique. did you ever cover one of his sunday press conferences in new york? >> all, yeah spent almost every sunday he would do this press coverage because he knew all the local reporters were not really doing much on a sunday afternoon. he would get headlines that way. so his role early on in the leadership for job was he was on quantity to these guys. >> host: he continues on the chair for 2008, correct? tell us about the evolving

leadership rivalries with people like senator durbin at this time. time. going back to 2008. what does a landscape look like in the leadership then? >> guest: it was, at that point, dick durbin is number two behind harry reid, but harry reid also was becoming very close to schumer and carving out these new roles and new power. it was really kind of like schumer was leader 2.0. and durbin was number two. it became very clear that harry reid trusted schumer much more and would go to him for more advice, and durbin was, they were roommates for 20ea, schumer and durbin, livi inside that townhouse. but the relationship state okay but it became clear over the years, like when is harry reid going to lose? when his harry reid going to retire? who's going to be the person,

durbin or schumer? it was a long shadow boxing between the two of them, but if you looked closely it was clear who harry reid wanted to be his successor. >> you see senator durbin in this clips, i noticed a stasis face is almost melancholy look. he could about that role. i think he would've admit now he felt rivalry but i since he's at peace within his role. he has had some very specific issues including this issue of dreamers and the immigrant kids were brought in as a young age become his signature issue. he is passionate about it. he is associate with that. he does a lot on the policy front that he seems to have found his place very comfortab comfortably. >> host: secures after the bailout for new york city, after 9/11, the fall 2008, not on the elections but the financial markets about to collapse. the financial crisis and congressional response to it. as new york senator, a key part

of his constituency is wall street. what were his efforts like in getting the financial crisis addressed by congress? >> guest: he was tireless. he didn't have a sort of senior position on the senate banking or finance committees at the time. he was a lower ranking member of those committees, and his biggest role was the chairman money to campaigns. but he was probably the most trusted person for wall street executives, the most trusted person at least in the senate, if not the entire capital. so he worked very closely in this ad hoc committee that just was a bunch of hou members, house minority leader is scott t the time john boehner, house speaker nancy pelosi. max baucus was a involved. they basically sat around, nancy pelosi is office an entire weekend coming up with the

legislation, the $700 billion bailout. at one point it was -- republicans were sitting in the minority leaders office and schumer and rahm emanuel worse sitting in nancy pelosi is office and hank paulson was a treasury secretary the time. almost collapsed in the middle of the meeting because of so exhausting. >> host: want to take you back to 2008, september 2008 and chuck schumer is comment on the senate floor, particularly addressing the republican nominee at the time, senator john mccain. here's what that looked like speed and this cannot pass without strong bipartisan support. there will be some at both parties who will not vote for any plan. so neither party has a majority. neither the democrats by a small margin, nor the republicans who are close to a majority. but we will need broad bipartisan support, as many on

each side of it i will just now vote for a plan. that's their prerogative. and so we need the president to get the republican house in order. even if we were to want to pass a bill with just democratic votes, we could not. it's obvious. look at the math. and so we need to have this bipartisan support. we beg it yesterday de chairman dodd and chairman frank's leadership. when we met in this chamber, in this building and really crafted out a very good compromise that was the basis to take to secretary paulson. it did far more for taxpayers, for homeowners, for oversight than the existing bill. unfortunately, however, we needed a four-legged stool, and one leg just vanished, the house republicans come in a way that

none of us still understand. in addition, senator mccains desire, even though we have not been involved in this legislation all, to fly in, put another fly in the army and created more trouble. senator mccain, i haven't heard him offer one constructive remark. we don't know what he supports. as he support the house plan for extensive support the president planned? does he have his own plan? by all reports yardley spoke at the meeting, which was his opportunity to try to do something. he spoke at the end at didn't say what his views were. as to whether he supported each plan. and so we really need two things, mr. president, on the republican side. we need president bush to take adership it when it president bush first and foremost to get the republican house members to support his plan, or modify it

in some way to bring the onboard yet keep the democratic house memos, republican members of the senate and the democratic members of the senate on board. and second, we need the president to respectfully tell santa to mccain to get out of town. he is not helping. he is harming. >> host: jennifer steinhauer, this is 15 years after the original house clip we saw. what do you hear in terms of not only his style but in terms of addressing the president, send it to mccain calling out from the campaign trail? >> guest: what that clip in some ways i discourse, i don't know if paul agrees with this, but chuck schumer is intensely partisan. i would not call the intensely liberal. he works a lot of policies that are bipartisan and, in fact, he gets dinged a lot on the left for having such close ties to wall street and the banking community who are very important to his state and very important

to the functions of government. he's calling there for something that is very bipartisan, very necessary, something many people on the left thought they could not vote for but he's framing it in a very partisan context. >> his line, john mccain, get out of town. somebody tell them to get out of town. so is doing both where his offering sort of the olive branch saying, hey, if all four caucuses are on board we will get something done. but at the same time, making clear if this falls apart, it's on your shoulders. it's not our fault. we are going to blame you. so that's sort of what he does in a way far more effectively than most people. >> host: this is also before the election. he's doing his job as the chair, calling out the republican candidate for president. >> guest: yes. and what happened the day before was mccain had flown in him

suspended his campaign for a day or two and was marching around the capital try to figure out where the negotiations were. he ended up in john boehner is office in in the minority lders office with a very young paul ryan, who actually h these ideas about how to do things differently. they went down to the white house, and that just sort of blew up everything. that's what he meant about mccain can't get out of town. because that meeting and so badly that the republican treasury secretary hank paulson got down on one knee knee, heldy pelosi sent and said please, don't give up up, don't give up. she replied, are you proposing to me? >> host: let me ask you about chuck schumer is relationship with, you talked about paul ryan and the meeting in nancy pelosi is office. how were his relationships with republicans on the house side? >> guest: back then, they just need in as a person pitbull.

i think the only saw him -- they yet start to do any real work with him. that would come in later years. i think back then the house just look at him like he just wants to win senate seats. >> particularly in the context he was essentially delegitimizing john mccain as an important player in something that was so crucial for the nation. .. do something that can help politically. john main sort of look the lead on working with

schumer the two of them put together bipartisan group of eight, four republicans, four democrats, to work on that. >> host: senator mccain didn't hold a grudge calling him out in 2008? >> guest: he -- that seems to remain his target, i think yesterday. he was probably saying about obama, that is where the real bitterness of the postelection john mccain surfaces. it stuck around for white a while. i did not actually ever witness him attacking schumer actually in that context too often. >> guest: i can't remember. >> host: what did chuck schumer bring to the gang of eight? what were his goals there? >> guest: i let paul speak to that more. he covered that more than i did. i think that is where you see emerging chuck schumer someone who has something beyond the perspective if you will, new york city perspective,

understanding in the immigration of border states and context of the center of the country where there were very differing views on this he become as more holistic politician that way. >> guest: absolutely. i think he understood this was something that was both good policy, he thought was good policy at least, and then there would be a political payoff. on the political side i think he saw this as if the majority senate democrats and democratic president get this done, they might get a political advantage with the hispanic vote in ways that you know, lbj did for democrats with the african-american vote and in civil rights legislation. >> host: take a look at that april 2013 news conference where they introduced the legislation. chuck schumer joined by many other members, including john mccain. >> if you're wondering why we are confident we can be

successful passing immigration reform this time around, look right behind me. these folks here. unprecedented coalition has formed in favor of immigration reform. growers and farmworkers, high-tech business leaders, the faith community. some most well-known conservative activists in washington and some of the most progressive. powerful outside forces have helped defeat certain other initiatives in washington but on immigration the opposite is proving true. i am convinced this issue will not fall victim to the usual partisan gridlock, and we are mindful that we approach our task at a moment when the public has never been more fed up with congress. in a week with disillusionment with politics is being acutely felt this bipartisan breakthrough offer as degree of hope. despite strong personalities and even stronger disagreements on

many issues we met in the middle for the common good. the bill is proof the the art of political compromise is not dead. so in conclusion, today is just the beginning of our voyage. it will be long and arduous. there will be perils we can't even anticipate. but we start off with optimism because this bipartisan agreement gives us a sturdy ship to ride out the stormy seas ahead. lastly, i would like to, i'd like to mentiosomeone who couldn't be here but who is on the minds of all of us today. the late ted kennedy. he is a hero to many of us on both sides of the aisle and especially on this issue. in many ways our work picks up where he left off. >> host: paul kane of "the washington post." what was the end of result of

that "gang of eight" legislation? >> guest: had a great result in the senate, got8 or 69 votes. a third of the republican congress supported it. every democrat supported it. it seemed to have real momentum. across the capitol among the house republicans there was a completely different political dynamic at work. they were not looking at national exit polling for mitt romney thinking we have to get right with hispanic voters, they were looking at their own primaries. they were scared to death getting primaried on the right. that bill, that is when chuck schumer and paul ryan first started working together, behind the scenes, schumer would go to ryan, even though he wasn't speaker yet, he knew how much respect people had for ryian. they kept getting, thinking they were getting close to having a house bill. then something bad would happen. it would get a little bit close, something bad would happen.

then eric cantor lost his primary in june 2014, to a far right candidate, david brat, who ran on one issue, that eric cantor supported amnesty. at that moment there were a lot of reasons cantor lost, but at that moment, they all said, nope, i'm out. >> host: toward the end of the news conference he mentions ted kennedy. you said earlier he viewed ted kennedy as a mtor and he kind of cracks at the end of that news conference. >> guest: ted kennedy, among other, particularly shaped senator schummer's flooding both of washington and of power because he was a person who always, for longest time in the house felt he was this guy from brooklyn who would never be respected. he was an outsider. he didn't fit in. i think kennedy was a mentor to him really growing into his own and some respect, in the role he had in washington.

>> host: 2013 was also a year where we saw discussion of very partisan discussion of over changing of filibuster rules regarding the appointment of judicial nominees, and other nominees. what brought all that about? >> guest: there has been sort of this confirmation wars, in some ways, gosh, goes all the way back to the '80s and the fights over bork and clarence thomas. but what happened by the time obama is sort of getting into the end of his first term and early in the second term, republicans were filibustering nominees both to the d.c. circuit, which is the second highest, second most important federal court in the land. they were just filibustering on the ground that they shouldn't have more judges. there was no real reason to be blocking thoseominees, oth than they just didn't nt to put more democratic appointees

on that court. they also were doing that with consumer financial protection board. the national labor relations board. they were essentially shutting down those boards but filibuster by not letting them get even a quorum. just built to a point where they used, for the first time ever, you know, a wholly-partisan vote to change the precedent of the senate that could say that any of these nominees on, anything except the supreme court, now just need a simple majority, 51 votes. it had never been done before on, that level, to really change a big, important, rule of the senate. >> host: let's take a look to the news conference after that vote on the senate floor, a news conference, with chuck schumer, harry reid and others. >> republicans are grinding the senate to a near stand still and they are using rules that were

intended to bring people together to tear us apart. the age-old rules of the senate are being used to paralyze us and the public is asking, is begging, us to act. we're 90 mers approval, rules give advantage for those that want to prevent the senate from achieving anything. mitch mcconnell said we've tried to change the subject. i beg to differ. he doesn't want to address the filibusters. he doesn't want to address the rules changes. so 3/4 of his speech is dedicated to obamacare. we are not changing the subject. today he is. because he doesn't want to discuss the dysfunction and the way republicans have used the rules to tie this place in one big knot. if you have two sides, one, which is, who is for action and one who is opposed, the senate rules give the opposition a head start.

>> that's right. >> and republicans have abused that advantage for years now. refusing to confirm qualified judges, preventing executive agencies from having the leaders they deserved. well, it is a new world. people demand action. the old rules need to be modified. and that's what we have done today. we haven't ripped them up. we modified them, in ways that can make things work. who in america doe't think a president, democrat or republican, deserves his or her picks for who should run the agencies? nobody. but there is a long list of caneand subcabinet-level positions that have been opposed. not just the most recent. so, we wish it hadn't come to this. but the american people deserve a functioning government, not gridlock. and if our government continues to be gridlocked, people are

going to lose total faith in government and it will be a different america. there was an imperative to change the rules, to help break the gridlock and that is what we have done today. >> host: jennifer stein hauer, "the new york times," do you think chuck schumer has regrets of those changes now coming in as leader? >> guest: not that he will admit to. an interesting clip to watch that, mitch mcconnell on the senate floor, they will live to regret this sooner than you think. that surface ad lot in the last few weeks, obviously with president-elect trump nominating one of the, one of the most conservative cabinets arguably in generations, democrats, to be fair, it is not as if any party would be inclined to filibuster all cabinet nominees that would be just not done, however they pretty much loss every leverage to take against even one they

really want to block. >> host: has chuck schumer shown his hand on any of nominees of the incoming trump administration? >> guest: he has spoken negatively of all of them. democrats will pick their shots. they may be able to align republicans. republicans have been excited about donald trump nominees. there are one or two that are trouble spots. i think that is where democrats go for the kill. >> guest: he has said, he said recently, to another media outlet that at the time he kind of wanted to just only make it apply to judges, not cabinet agency nominees. he should have said that back at the time. i think you'll see his focus, their focus will be on tillerson for secretary of state and sort of exploring both his views, the nominee's views and the president-elect's views on russia.

i think they will focus a lot on jeff sessions and think they will end up focusing a lot more on immigration than session's own past where there is lot of talk. i think they will try to focus more on policy. >> host: we looked a lot on this program how senator schummer worked with his caucus, how he worked with the opposition. how about his relations with president obama? >> guest: his relationship with democrats in congress and president obama particularly when they went to the minority was pretty complicated. i think senator reid, senator schummer and others really wanted more from the white house than they got sometimes. you know, we all know that president obama ran cool. they wanted him to run a bit more hot, to have their back if you will in some of their fights. that they didn't feel he and his staff engaged intensely enough in. >> guest: schumer's

relationship, not necessarily with the president himself but actually with the president's staff was always at particularly touchy. two years ago after, they lost to the 2014 midterms, schumer delivered a speech and threw it together and went to the national press club and said out loud privately for a long time, pushing for affordable care act in 2009 and 2010 was the right time to have done that. it came across as critical. boy, the entire al loom nye network came into action and attacked schumer for days on end after that. >> host: as the president's term is winding down just in the last few months he kind of butted heads with the president over this 9/11 victims bill, the jasta bill, what can you tell us briefly about the bill before we

show a little clip of that? >> guest: the political power of 9/11 is very much alive and real and overcame a lot of forces trying to shut it down. basically it was a bill that would a allow people who lost loved ones, family members in the 9/11 attacks to try to sue the saudi government, for their alleged role for people financially supporting the terrorists. it, it was a bill that the obama administration thought was going to roil their sort of carefully negotiated layers of diplomacy in the middle east but they couldn't stop it and schumer, you know, being new yorker, this is one time where, i will defer to jennifer a little bit on this, but that was his -- >> guest: we saw that twice, in the iran bill when he voted against the president on the iran bill. that really enraged the white house because they thought he would take other democrats,

particularly democrats representing jewish communities with him. that is where we see the parochial chuck schumer who cares a whole lot about his voters and his interestsn new york. that is one of the this wel watch him balance as leader of his party, how much he can still be doing things specifically for the state of new york. >> host: harder to do that as your leader of the party in the senate? >> guest: harry reid did a lot of things for his home state. he will continue to be pretty parochial about new york but not how much time he can actually physically devote. reporter: was it easier to owe post the president on the jasta bill and sanctions bill bill because the president was lame duck president? >> guest: a little bit. the iran bill was a tougher problem because the democratic base by and large across the country was very supportive of it and he was going going to go

against a president popular with liberal voters. jasta became politically bad, toxic to be on the other side of that argument it passed by i think unanimous consent in both the house and senate. >> guest: basically no debate. >> guest: yeah. that became an easier fight for him actually. host to be clear the speech we'll show you next, senator schummer overriding the president's veto. this is from september this year. >> i rise today, mr. president, to speak on behalf of my bill, the justice against sponsors of terrorism act or jasta. soon we will vote on whether or not to override the president's veto of this bill. this is a decision i do not take lightly. but, as one of the authors of this legislation and firm beer in s purpose, i believe the senate should confidentially vote to override and i will lay out the reasons why as clearly as i can.

the bill is near and dear to my heart as a new yorker because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice, finally giving them the avenue to pursue the foreign sponsors of a terrorist attack that took the lives of their loved ones. the courts in new york unfortunately have dismiss the 9/11 victims claims against certain foreign entities alleged to have helped the 9/11 attacks. these courts are following what i believe is a fundamentally incorrect reading of the foreign sovereign immunities act. do we really want it established inflexibly in precedent that foreign countries directly responsible for financing terrorist acts on u.s. soil are beyond the reach of justice? i don't ink . i don't think that in an age where we have state sponsors of terrorism, i don't think that's what the foreign service

immunity act ever intended. and so, for the sake of these families it should be made clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that every entity, including foreign states, will be held accountable if they are sponsors of heinous acts like 9/11. >> host: jennifer stein hauer, you said he has been a proponent of all things new york. over the course of his career, how have you seen his style evolve in terms of his presentation on the floor and members on the floor? >> guest: paul made a reference earlier to the infamous sunday news conferences. those are the cliche about chuck schumer that are in fact a thing of the past. chuck schumer is not really running at cameras or in many cases knocking over other members of congress to get in front of cameras. up with of the most great and subtle evolutions following him

these years see he has become, made a difficult move to become more for other people. helping people win. helping people raise money. helping people maintain power. helping people get legislation passed. he always wanted to take credit for bills and now he will put a bill together to give hurt people credit. he is becoming a more central leader. >> host: outgoing relationship of senator reid and senator mcconnell, at nytimes.com he said he was a protege of reid but had better relationship with mitch mcconnell. >> guest: better relationship than harry reid did. harry reid and must have mitch had a relationship deteriorated quite a bit recently in some years. some the relationship with mitch mcconnell and senator schummer is off a little bit. we'll see. they never had to work together that closely. i think there is a sense that they both want that relationship to be better than the preceding

one of the they will try to make it work. >> host: in absence of harry reid, what is that relationship looking like with mitch mcconnell? >> guest: first of all the relationship between reid and schumer reached an epic level. they became each other's yin and yang and i don't know how chuck schumer will function in the senate without harry reid. that will be an odd thing. he is, you know, so used to having reid there for sort of more intuitive, sort of feel and decision-making. how does he get along with mcconnell? i think it will depend. it will depend on how partisan mcconnell is going to try to go with some of the legislation it will depend, real big, early flashpoint will be the supreme court nominee. we've had this vacancy now for, nine or 10 months and, you know trump will put up a nominee pretty quickly and that's, they

still have the filibuster there. are the democrats going to try to filibuster this nominee as sort of payback for the way mayor rick garland was never given so much as a hearing? that could deteriorate the relationship pretty quickly if mcconnell doing things, schumer doing things that mcconnell might have done. that will be the first real key test. >> host: who is schumer's go-to senator. who replaces schumer? >> guest: i don't think anybody can replace chuck schumer. patty murray of washington are his most trusted lieutenant. he and durbin have a leftover friction. patty murray is getting enhanced titles and responsibilities in her job, moving up to the number three spot in leadership. that will be a key relationship. and then there are just some

other people here and there. some of them are in lower level leadership spots like debbie stabenow. some are out in the committees, that you will see ranking members like jack reed of rhode island. >> host: quite a range in the leadership he has chosen. >> guest: it is true. senators he helped get elected, there is very personal relationship. >> guest: yes. >> guest: they spent a lot of time together and he spent something personal in those men and women. >> guest: 2011 class of democrats coming up, a bunch of them were elected in 2006. sherrod brown, jon tester. those are people he got elected. so he is really going want to see those folks win because they're his closest friends. >> host: in terms of close personal relationship, paul kane, you did an interview with senator schum irat the democratic convention this past summer where he talked about his staff. let's take a look.

>> some people out there might not know this but you are a puppet master. i was walking around in the concourse last night, you ran into brian and katie fallon, one of your most esteemed couples got married because they worked for you. >> yes. >> first question, how many schumer couples is there right now? >> mike lynch, is schumer marriage, schumer marriage means you didn't know each other. you met on the staff and you got married. 13. and three cooking. >> three cooking. whoa, that is some pressure. >> not saying whoer this. i'm usually the last -- i do try to import tune in certain instances in my characteristically delicate way. but, sometimes i'm the last to know. >> is it because you're such a demanding boss that they have no life other than the office? that they end up getting married

together? >> good spin on schumer marriages due to my great, mike lynch, my great chief of staff, we're the closest 19 staff isn't staff. they celebrate holidays. thanks giving at someone's house. some birthdays. and they, they go out drinking a lot. [laughter]. but we are the closest knit staff on the hill would be the good spin. the bad spin is yours. that they work so hard they don't have a chance to meet anybody else. >> host: video from the "washington post." paul kane of the post, any changes expected in his staff as he moves to -- >> guest: he will definitely expand his staff. you do get, you know, essentially dozens of positions that now come open. some of those will holdovers and stick around. people that have certain expertise in parliamentary procedure are really hard to find. so some of those will stick

around. others, one of the fallouts that's beneficial for how bad things went for democrats is, the stack of rest mays of people applying for these jobs with senator schummer now is a lot different and a lot higher and a lot more elite because nobody is going into an administration job. nobody is going into the west wing. that means he will have higher caliber talent. ahead foruncements coming in senator schummer in terms of staff or approach to the job? >> guest: in terms of staff, picking up what paul said, it is not easy working for chuck schumer. we know he has monday night murder boards, he comes in from new york, as late as he possibly can and he votes or does his thing and then his staff comes in one by one to brief him on the important items of the week, some as late as 10:30 at night.

you need to know your stuff or you don't succeed in chuck schur land it is challenging. i'm sure he will be very picky. interesting to see if he continues the monday, and how micro managing on local issues and other broader policy issues as he is busy leading. >> host: talk about new yorker, donald trump and chuck schumer. a tweet you mentioned in one of your articles, paul kane, donald trump tweeted shortly after the election, i always have a good relationship with chuck schumer. he is far smarter than harry reid and has ability to get things done. good news. you have manhattan versus brooklyn. what are you looking for? >> guest: i'm looking to see whether these two have this good sense of a relationship. schumer has been to mar-a-lago, well for a fund-raiser, dscc, when he was chairman. raised i think $250,000 at

trump's venue. he is very stern in saying i don't have a good relationship with him. some of his rental places were in my district. i knew him a little bit when i was in the house. again, i'm going to come back to that supreme court pick. that will also tell us a lot about what trump is going to try and do to schumer and whether he tries to marginalize him. >> guest: well, here's the thing about chuck schumer. he is the only person in washington donald trump actually knows. he laid eyes on paul ryan, half dozen times and five of those in the last nine months? he has no relationship with mitch mcconnell and has no cultural connection to him whatsoever. he knows chuck schumer for many years. he donated to the campaign. they're from the same city. ran somewhat in the same circles that they were both powerful new yorkers. so they know each other. they have something to work with. that doesn't mean they will see eye-to-eye on policy nominations.