Face the Nation transcripts April 7, 2013: Schumer, McCain, Albright
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on April 7, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; plus, "Escape from Camp 14" author Blaine Harden, Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib and CBS news correspondents Major Garrett, Nancy Cordes and Margaret Brennan.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, is Congress any closer to a deal on immigration, gun control, or the budget? And what does North Korea want?
Whatever it is Kim Jung-un is up to, Washington is taking it seriously.
CHUCK HAGEL: Some of the actions they've taken over the last few weeks present a-- a real and clear danger.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll get perspective on that from former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the only secretary of state who has ever been to North Korea.
But, first, we'll turn to the gridlock back home. With Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, who are actually working together to get a bill passed in one area, immigration.
On Page Two, we'll get analysis from longtime Washington Post correspondent turned author, Blaine Harden. The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib, and our own Major Garrett and Nancy Cordes.
Then we'll talk to Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times' correspondent Mark Mazzetti about his new book on the CIA, The Way of the Knife.
There's a lot of news, but this is FACE THE NATION.
ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington, FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning again. There have been some significant overnight developments on this situation with North Korea, so we're going to start there this morning. Our State Department correspondent Margaret Brennan joins us from Seoul.
MARGARET BRENNAN (CBS News State Department Correspondent): Good morning, Bob. Well, it appears that diplomatic efforts to convince North Korea to stop plans for a missile launch are failing, but we are hearing that South Korea's national security adviser does expect a missile launch to happen around April tenth, and the commander of U.S. Forces, General Thurman, is taking that threat seriously. He has canceled plans to visit Washington this week and will remain in Seoul as a, quote, "prudent" measure. Now, we hear that the South Korean Navy has moved destroyers with interceptor missiles into position to take out any incoming fire and Japan, reportedly, has plans to do the same. Now, a senior U.S. diplomat tells us that China's relationship with North Korea is at a historic low. That is significant because China has the most deep relationship with North Korea in terms of economic and military ties and the U.S. strategy has been to push Beijing to control North Korea's new, young president, Kim Jong-un. Now, the Obama administration wants to shift the focus from military preparedness to diplomacy. Secretary of state John Kerry still plans to come here to Seoul this week despite these plans for a missile launch. He will meet with South Korea's president to discuss how to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program because that is the precondition for any kind of negotiation with Pyongyang.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Margaret.
And joining us now two key senators both of whom appear regularly on this broadcast, but never together. Well, this morning they are here as allies trying to broker a deal on immigration reform. Arizona Senator John McCain and New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.
But before we get to immigration, Senator McCain, you are, of course, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, resumption is that if North Korea is going to fire this missile, they would call it a test, but nobody is really sure, and that is why people are taking this so seriously. What-- what do you think is going on here? And what do we need to be doing?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-Arizona/Armed Services Committee): Well, first of all, it's obvious as it was reported that this is a more serious situation and have no doubt about it. South-- South Korea would win. We would win if there was a-- an all-out conflict, but the fact is that North Korea could set Seoul on fire, and that, obviously, would be a-- a catastrophe of enormous proportions. I don't know what kind of game this young man is playing. It's obviously of brinksmanship. We are-- but in the past we have seen this-- this repetitious confrontation, negotiation, incentives to North Korea to better behave, hopes that they will abandon their nuclear quest--which they never will, otherwise they'd be totally irrelevant, and so we've seen the cycle over and over and over again for the last twenty or thirty years. They confront. There's crisis. Then we offer them incentives, food, money. While meanwhile, the most repressive and oppressive regime on Earth continues to function. Finally, China does hold the key to this problem. China can cut off their economy if they want to. Chinese behavior has been very disappointing, whether it'd be on cyber security, whether it'd be on confrontation in the South China Sea, or whether their failure to rein in what could be a-- a-- a catastrophic situation which more than once wars have started by accident. And this is-- this is a very serious situation.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- I think that's probably what the thing that people fear most, that somehow or another this rhetoric would get to the point that they do something, and, accidentally, they trigger something that no one knows where it goes, Senator Schumer.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-New York): Especially with such an erratic leader. And I agree with John, you know, the Chinese hold a lot of the cards here. They are by nature cautious, but they're carrying it to an extreme. It's about time they stepped up to the plate and put a little pressure on this North Korean regime.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's switch to the reason that you all are here, and I don't want to call this historic, but--
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: I guess.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --but John McCain and Chuck Schumer on the same side of the table, working together. You're part of this bipartisan group in the Senate trying to cobble together some kind of a plan for immigration reform. How close are you, Senator?
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Yeah, I think we're doing very well. I think that we hope that we can have a bipartisan agreement among the eight of us on comprehensive immigration reform by the end of this week. Over the last two weeks we've made great progress. There have been kerfuffles all along the way, but each one of those thus far has been settled. And what's happening, actually, Bob, is the staffs of the eight of us are in a room working twelve hours a day taking all the agreements that we've come to over the last three months and turning them into legislative language, specific legislative language. That's a tedious, arduous process. Every so often, one or more of the aides says, well, that language isn't quite what we agreed to, you have to go back. But thus far, we're on track. All of us have said that there will be no agreement until the eight of us agree to a big, specific bill but, hopefully, we can get that done by the end of the week.
BOB SCHIEFFER: By the end of week.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Hopefully.
BOB SCHIEFFER: That seems to be the news here.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: That's are-- that's what we're on track to do.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you, Senator McCain, Marco Rubio, senator--
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --from Florida, has not signed on yet. He is part of your group. You think he'll-- you'll-- he'll be part of this?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Oh, he's been very helpful and important in this whole effort that we've been making. He's reached out to conservative sides, including talk show hosts and others, and Marco has been very important. May I just say, Chuck and I, it's not the first time we worked together. I thought we really achieved something when we averted basically doing away with the sixty votes in the United States Senate and we worked hard with other senators on that. Chuck Schumer is a man of his word, and that's what-- why I think we've been able to, the eight of us, work together and I appreciate everybody's involvement. We need to have a path to citizenship and we need to have secure borders, and we also have to address the issue of forty percent of the people who came here illegally. They didn't cross our borders. They came on a visa--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: --and overstayed their visa. And that means we have to have a robust guest worker program so that people will not hire someone who here-- is here illegally. And, finally, could I just say that we need to have a secure border because back in 1986, and our beloved Ronald Reagan, we gave amnesty to three million people and we promised that we would secure the border. We now have eleven. I've got to assure the people of this country and Arizona that we're not going to have a third wave ten or fifteen or twenty years from now. And most Americans agree that if you pay back taxes, if you pay a fine, if you learn English, if you go to the back of the line, then you can and should be eligible to-- for a path to citizenship.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Where are you right now? What do you think is the main sticking point right now, Senator Schumer?
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Well, I don't think there's any one main sticking point. There are lots of little issues on different parts of the bill that we have to resolve but I just want to say this. First, John has been a great leader on this. I don't think it could have happened without him, and he's really stepped up to the plate and many others have followed. We have, you know, there-- there are always disagreements on each one, but-- but the desire of all eight to meet in the middle and come to an agreement, which is so much more important than each little thing that we might prefer one way or the other, has carried us through this far. And I am very hopeful and optimistic it will carry us through the whole way.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about--
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Could I-- could I just add also?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: There will be a great deal of unhappiness about this proposal because everybody didn't get what they wanted. There are entrenched positions on both sides of this issue, as far as business and labor. But I'm also got to give some credit to both business and labor.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Yes.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: They have engaged in some fairly good-faith negotiations and I'd like to give them a-- a little credit here as well.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: I agree. I think each, particularly Donohue and Trumka rose to the occasion and they told some of their constituencies, you can't get every single thing you want but for the good of the country and the good of their own specific people they represent, we have to do this. And that's one of the keys having business and labor to agree.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let-- let me just ask you this. Let's say you do get this agreement. There will be eight of you, four Democrats, four Republicans. Then how close are you to getting this through the Senate?
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Well, there is a long road. We first have to go through committee and Senator Leahy has agreed and we have promised that we will go through a full mark-up. There are people on both sides who are against this bill, and they will be able to shoot at it in the committee, but John was there in 2007. That's sort of a good thing because in 2007 we didn't go through the committee and then it collapsed on the floor. This will be a test, a crucible. Then hopefully, by some point in May, we'll be through the mark-up, and we can go to the floor and I am hopeful that we get a good vote on both sides of the aisle. We don't want this bill to be, you know, fifty-three Democrats and just a handful of Republicans because we need broad bipartisan support, particularly, to get a bill done in the House.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you-- let me--
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Some are saying that-- some are saying, wow, we're not having enough hearings, we're not having enough-- first of all, we know the issue. But second of all, the Judiciary Committee will act. There will be amendments. There will be debate. Then it will go to the floor of the Senate. There will be plenty of time for discussion and debate so I reject this notion that something is being railroaded through. This is-- this is the beginning of the process, not the end of it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah. This is the order--
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Exactly.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --that John Boehner talks about. I got to ask you about guns.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Sure.
BOB SCHIEFFER: It-- it look likes that all the major reforms that people like you, Senator Schumer, thought that would-- had a chance of passage after Newtown. It looks like most of that is fading away. Do you think it's going to be any significant gun control legislation?
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Well, I'm still hopeful, yes, that there is.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: First I would say there are a handful of senators, led by Senator Cruz, who have said they want to filibuster and not even allow us to debate this bill.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: That would be very wrong. This is a big issue. There are deeply felt convictions on both sides. John and I clearly would not agree, but we certainly should at least be allowed to get on the floor and have debate. And oftentimes-- and this is the rule changes that John and I worked on earlier this year--Republicans said we're blocking you from going on the bill because you won't allow amendments. But on this one Leader Reid has said, he would allow a full-throated debate with amendments. So please let us go to the floor. If we go to the floor, I'm still hopeful that what I call the sweet spot--background checks can succeed. We're working hard, they are Senator Manchin and Senator Kirk, have a few ideas that might modify the proposal that we put in there. As long as they don't impair the effectiveness, I'm entertaining those, and, hopefully, people will rise to the occasion.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's see what Senator McCain, how-- what's your thought on a filibuster on this. Would you be against that?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I don't understand it. The purpose of the United States senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand--
BOB SCHIEFFER: So you'd encourage Republicans not to filibuster.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I would not only encourage it. I don't understand it. What are we afraid of? Why would we not want, if this issue is as important as all of us think it is, why not take it on the world's greatest deliberative--that's the greatest exaggeration in history, by the way--but, you know, why not take it up an amendment and debate. The American people will profit from it. I do not understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leader has said that we can have amendments.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you quickly, Senator, would you favor background checks on gun sales at gun shows? That's been a real tough one for some of--
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: It really depends on how they're carried out, how long, what the depth of it is. This is another reason why we need to go to the floor. Maybe we could-- everybody wants the same goal, and that is to keep the guns out of-- out of the hands of criminals and people who are mentally disabled. And background checks are being conducted. Are they sufficient? Are there ways we can improve those? Then I think that that's again, a subject that I think the American people, and certainly, the Congress, could be helped by if we have a vigorous debate and discussion.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think Mayor Bloomberg's actions, putting a lot of money into ads in states outside New York, do you think that's helped or hurt, Senator McCain?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think it may have hurt him a little bit in states like mine, you know, the outside-- outsider coming in. But I respect his right. There's some special interests are playing in all of these things. I respect their rights to invest money, and I'm sure the television and radio stations in my state are appreciative.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: You know the NRA is investing a lot of money. Why shouldn't Mayor Bloomberg be allowed at least to give his point of view and the viewpoint of at least on something like background checks, supposedly ninety percent of Americans?
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I want to thank both of you. This reminds me of how Washington used to be when I first came to Washington. I'm sure it will never be the same and I'm sure it looks better in the rearview mirror than it really was, but it was really nice to see two senior members of the Senate sitting at the same table having a discussion like we just had. I think you may want to take this on the road.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: We will. Thanks.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you both. We will be back in a minute to talk to Madeleine Albright about North Korea.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we welcome back to the broadcast, the secretary of state during the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright and, of course, you were the U.N. ambassador before that. Secretary Albright, you were, I guess, the only American secretary of state who has ever been to North Korea as far back as I know. You were there-- when was it? What?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT (Former Secretary of State): I was there in the fall of 1999-- 2000. And, you know, I'm still the highest sitting official that went there. I mean other officials have gone, and President Clinton went afterwards--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: --when he was out of office, but I'm still the highest sitting official that went in the fall of 2000.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So what do you make of what's going on right now?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think there are a number of levels to it, Bob, which is that I think primarily this is about Kim Jong-un trying to establish his position internally. A lot of this is domestically motivated in terms of whether he's in charge, or the military is in charge or the people around him are in charge, and I think we have to see it from a domestic political perspective. Also, the nuclear programs and technology are basically their cash crop. It's only thing that they have going, and so he is, obviously, exercising that, and I think that there's also the other level of the north-south issues on the peninsula, which have been an issue since the 1950s. And then the international aspect of it in terms of how he is kind of making, frankly, ridiculous statements in order to get everybody exercised about it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know it's almost like the mafia model, isn't it? I mean, we're going to throw a brick through your window, unless you pay us, and if you don't pay us, we'll throw the brick. And-- and up until this point this has worked, to a certain extent, for North Korea. They make these threats, and then things seem to happen about what they want.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I was going back over the record a little bit. This is very much part of a pattern. I mean it's been going on. They make the threats. We try to figure out how to deal with them. I must say we tried that in 2000. And you try to figure out but it's a repetitive pattern which I think is a reason why we need to approach this in a particular way. We need to know this is a pattern. Therefore, we should not panic. But we also do need to take some very important, prudent defensive measures, and I think the Obama administration has done that, in fact, and statements that Secretary Hagel has made, Secretary Kerry has made, the President, people in the White House that we are taking prudent measures, we are dealing with the region with the new president in South Korea, Park, and then talking to the Japanese and, generally, and then Secretary Kerry is going to China. So we are doing both defensive aspects and also diplomatic. So I think we're handling this the right way.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is China the key here?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I do believe so. Though, we can't just kind of only have the Chinese do this. But as Senator McCain said, I think they really do hold in many ways, the key because they provide their econom-- their economic background with their oil.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The two things that China does not want, of course, is if something happened to the North Korean government and all these refugees would be spilling into China. But, also, the Chinese do not want the entire peninsula under the control of-- of the South Korean government. I mean-- and so it would seem me to be it would be very much in their interest to keep at least the status quo, and not allow this to go beyond, as you say, because the great danger here, it seems to me, is that accidentally, a war could be triggered. And if-- do you have any doubt that if North Korea should somehow fire on South Korea, that the South Koreans would not retaliate this time?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think they would have to because there was a lot of criticism of them in terms of what happened when their ship and the island. But the question is what they would do and I do think we have to be really careful not to have this escalate, which is why the diplomatic aspects of it are so important. But I also think that what we have-- you were talking about the Chinese. They can't want to have a nuclear power on their southern border. They certainly don't want the refugees. I think this may sound difficult to do but necessary is to persuade them that the North Koreans are not the buffer for them that they think it is; that the South Koreans and us--because we are in an alliance--have no hostile intent there and that they don't need to be afraid of a denuclearized Korean peninsula. But that is part of the project that we have to make sure that they don't see that their only saving grace is to have this North Korean very peculiar situation go on.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What was it like-- you dealt with this young leader's father when you were there? What-- what was it like? I mean we just hear that these people are very, very isolated.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think they are isolated but not uninformed. What I found when I got there--and had I talked to Kim Dae-jung, who was the president of South Korea at the time about what it was like to deal with Kim Jong-il. And he said he's not crazy and he wasn't. We had about twelve hours of talks. They were very substantive in terms of agreements about missile moratoriums and missile limits and he actually had said that he would not be opposed to American forces being in South Korea. We were talking about various negotiations. And it was a sane discussion. The problem was that they are in some kind of delusional denial in terms of how the rest of the people in North Korea are living. So while we were having fancy dinners, I knew that the North Korean people were eating bark off the trees. And so it was passing strange, the whole thing, frankly. But I do think that we were talking. The problem is that they also have a tendency to lie to us about whether they had a-- an enriched uranium program or what they were doing. But I think that I believe that talking to them is important, and if they were to return to the agreements that they made in 2005, we should be willing to talk to them. Talking is actually a form of trying to solve problems.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Madeleine Albright, we thank you so much for your insight this morning.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Bob. Great to be with you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I'll be back in a minute with some personal thoughts about all this.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know things have taken a dangerous turn when Fidel Castro joins the United States in calling on North Korea to tone down its rhetoric about the threat of nuclear war. But that is what Castro did. At such times you have to wonder if there isn't someone within the North Korean government who is trusted enough to warn the impetuous young leader Kim Jung-un that he may be on the wrong path. Well, a story making the rounds in intelligence circles helps us understand why, if there is such a person, he or she might be reluctant to offer Kim advice on anything. According to this report, there were seven military generals who served as honorary pallbearers at the funeral of Kim's father. Four have disappeared without explanation, vanished. No one knows where they are. The fifth, apparently offended Kim in some way and was marched before a group of contemporary, strapped into a suicide vest, packed with explosives, and simply blown up before their eyes. That kind of thing is the part that worries U.S. officials. And, apparently, Fidel Castro, as well. Back in a minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now. But for most of you, we'll be right back with more on North Korea, and the prospects for gun control and immigration reform.
Plus, you'll hear from New York Times correspondent Mark Mazzetti about his new book about the CIA and drones. Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION. Joining us now on Page Two, Gerald Seib, the Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal; Blaine Harden, whose latest book Escape From Camp 14, is about a North Korean man who escaped one of the highest security prisons in that country. It's just out in paperback. Plus, we're joined by our congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes and our White House correspondent Major Garrett. Blaine, I want to start with you because I want to get back to this North Korean thing. You have done extensive research on North Korea for the book that you wrote. You're an old Washington Post hand. And-- and I think you're working on another--
BLAINE HARDEN (Escape from Camp 14): Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: -- book now about North Korea. What do you make of this latest situation? What-- what should we read in? What-- what does this young guy want?
BLAINE HARDEN: It's hard to know what he wants, but I think that one thing that Americans should know is that North Koreans are afraid of the United States. They're afraid of the United States because of the legacy of the Korean War. Between 1950 and 1953 American bombers laid waste to most of the country, about eighty-five percent of the structures were flattened by U.S. bombs. In North Korea the curtain was pulled around the country after the war, and it's as though, for many North Koreans, that bombing happened last Thursday. So what that means, if U.S. government is known to be flying B-2 bombers over the Korean Peninsula, it scares North Koreans. And it gives Kim Jung-un exactly what he wants, which is fear, which increases his legitimacy.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I'm going to-- and I'd like to ask-- maybe if any of you have any information which the thing I wonder about. You know that B-2, where they-- the U.S. government made sure everybody saw a picture of the B-2 there. That is the stealth bomber. I wonder, do either of you know whether the North Koreans knew that bomber had flown into that area before it did? Or did they just wake up and see that picture?
GERALD SEIB (Wall Street Journal): Well, I mean, you know, it's interesting, that-- that's been used before. And I'm not sure that North Koreans knew, but the Pentagon and the-- and the White House made sure they knew this time. That's I think was the important thing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
GERALD SEIB: And you know that the exercises were going to happen with the South Koreans. They were going to be big. They were going to be noisy. And they were going to include B-2s and F-22s. And so that was as interesting as what the North Koreans did in the last couple of weeks it was steps out of the old North Korean playbook with a very vigorous American response. So, it was the combination of the two that was really-- set this---
BOB SCHIEFFER: But the idea that that bomber was over there close enough to fly over North Korea and the first that the North Koreans knew of it was a-- was a photograph released by the U.S. government. That would sort of add to the-- maybe that (INDISTINCT) talked about
BLAINE HARDEN: I think it was a propaganda gift--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
BLAINE HARDEN:--that the North Korean government was really happy to have.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Really?
BLAINE HARDEN: --that along with other announcements in the past few weeks, past few days by the Obama administration. In fact, there were reports that midway through last week, the Obama administration decided to roll back these--
GERALD SEIB: Mm-Hm.
BLAINE HARDEN: --kinds of visible symbols of confrontation thinking that perhaps they'd wrong-footed themselves.
MAJOR GARRETT (CBS News Chief White House Correspondent): Well, the administration's perspective is that it will be less noisy and less visible going forward for a couple of reasons. It was noisy and visible earlier on to reassure the South Koreans and the Japanese that we were serious about this pact that we just signed that if North-- South Korea is attacked by North Korea, we will defend them. And those visible signs--F-22, B-2 stealth, was meant to say, yes, we really mean what we've just said on paper. Now they believe they've made the point and they don't want to do anything else that could either be misinterpreted or provide a propaganda tool for Kim Jong-un. That's why the (INDISTINCT) launched which is unconnected to these military exercises will be postponed so it's not to be viewed as provocation. But the administration does believe it's reassured the allies in the region, sent a proper signal. And picking up on what was said earlier, Bob, about China opinion. Just this morning, Xi Jinping, the new leader of China said we will not allow provocative actions in the region. We don't want anyone in the region to set things in motion that can't be stopped for selfish gain. That can only be viewed as a Chinese--if not rebuke--at least more than subtle criticism to North Korea about the game it's playing and the potential consequences.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, when you got Fidel Castro saying it's just-- it's the most serious threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
MAJOR GARRETT: Yes, but trust me within the region-- within the region, Xi Jinping, is a-- is a much larger voice and much more prominent and much more authoritative on this question than Fidel Castro.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let's hope that, you know, let's hope that this is all just bluster. But, you know, as-- as we heard this morning, they-- every indication is they will go ahead with this missile test on Wednesday.
GERALD SEIB: Yeah. So we're guaranteed another week or so of this, at least, I think. And you know, I think one of the things to remember when it comes to the North Korean motivation here is there are-- there are new governments all around. You know there's a new-- there's obviously a new leader in North Korea. There's a new government in China. There's a new government in South Korea. There's a new government in place in Japan and so I have to believe that Kim is in the business of sending some signals to all of those people, and the second term of the Obama administration may be different from the first as well. But that's also where miscalculations happen. And I think that's what Senator McCain was talking about earlier that maybe nobody intends to have a war here, but you stumble into a war when you get into a situation where you have those kinds of conditions on the table.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, World War II happened for more obscure reasons-- World War I, I should say--
MAJOR GARRETT: World War I, yes.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --than-- than what we're seeing here. I mean it is easy to stumble into a war.
MAJOR GARRETT: And on Friday the White House went out of its way to say if there is this missile launch we will not be surprised by it. We are anticipating in sort of a way to suggest this is not going to provoke us. This is not going to provoke the South Koreans. If this happens, we will deal with it but by preemptively describing it as something that will not surprise us was trying to lower the temperature.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, Nancy, I haven't brought you in, because Congress, as is its want has been on another extended vacation.
NANCY CORDES (CBS News Congressional Correspondent): Two full weeks.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So there hasn't been too much going on on Capitol Hill on this story. But it occurs to me that this probably could not have happened at a worse time for the President's legislative agenda up on the Hill because here you got all these issues, the rubber is finally going to hit the road, and, suddenly, we have this situation in North Korea that there's so much attention on.
NANCY CORDES: That's true, though I think there is so much momentum behind immigration reform, as you picked up on in your conversation with Senators Schumer and McCain this morning, that there may not be a way to stop it at this point. They're probably going to get a final deal, maybe midweek, maybe the end of the week. But they've got almost all of the pieces in place at this point. The one outstanding part of this deal has to do with migrant farm workers, how much you pay them, how many of them you let into the country every year under a new visa program. Once they have got that figured out, it's just a little bit of housekeeping. And then this is really a marked achievement for Congress which has struggled so mightily with this issue for so many years.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I thought one of the most important things Senator McCain said this morning was he does not want a filibuster on this. He wants this to go to the floor and he wants people to vote on it--
NANCY CORDES: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER:--and you've already got people like some of the new folk in town, Ted Cruz, among others, saying well they are going to filibuster it. McCain said no.
NANCY CORDES: Right. And they're really trying to dot all their I's and cross their T's here. You know they're making sure that they've labor on board. They're making sure they've got the Chamber of Commerce on board, the agriculture industry on board. So that no Republican or Democrat rank and file member who wants to walk away from this can do it easily by saying, well, the chamber is not on board so I'm not going to be on board.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what about Marco Rubio? He's so far-- he is part of this group of eight trying to cobble together this but he's not-- says he's not there yet.
NANCY CORDES: Well, he's got a delicate dance here because he knows that he really is the conduit between this group and Republicans, trying to convince skeptical Republicans to get on board. So he needs to act as if, you know, he's not just going to capitulate. He's really holding out until the last minute to get the best deal for Republicans. But he's been integrally involved in every step of this process. He will be on board at the end. But he needs to be the one saying, we're not going to rush this. We are going to hold hearings. This is going to be done out in the light of day. So that you have Republicans who have opposed immigration reform in the past but feel that it's in their interest to support it now to be able to do that more easily.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you have a sense, Major, that they can actually pass a bill this year?
MAJOR GARRETT: The White House believes that it can. And on Friday it became very much aware of this "Dear Colleague" letter that Senator Marco Rubio was circulating asking for a slow process in the Judiciary Committee as well as a full amendment process on the Senate floor. Some of the White House looked at that as he said he's trying to torpedo this. The general consensus was that if you're arguing at this stage about a deliberate process, you're essentially conceding that this is probably going to make it through the Senate Judiciary Committee and probably succeed on the Senate floor and you're just trying to reassure your colleagues that nothing is going to be jammed down their throats. So the White House still net, net looks at Marco Rubio and says he is a positive influence and this is not an attempt with a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated among his colleagues to torpedo the process but to slightly advance it.
NANCY CORDES: And When I talk to people who are involved in these negotiations, no one thinks that he's not going to be a part of this at the end of the day.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about some of the other problems that Washington is facing. Gerry, do you see any chance that they'll come to an agreement on some sort of a deficit reduction package?
GERALD SEIB: You know there's a chance. It's probably less than fifty percent. But what's going to be interesting this week is President Obama is finally going to put out his budget, and we kind of know what's in it already. It's a budget designed to keep the idea, the dream of a big deficit deal alive because he's making-- making everybody a little bit mad. If that's the sign of progress in Washington you've made everybody a little angry. There will be progress this week because the President is going to propose taking a little bite out of Social Security benefit increases down the road by changing the inflation measure. And he's going to propose that the Republicans sign on to some more revenues. That makes the left angry; it makes the right angry. But the idea is to say, look, I will give a little bit on entitlements, if you give a little bit on revenues. That's the basic formula for a big deficit deal. Can it be done between now and, say, September when the debt sealing is going to be hit again? You know it's a chance but not a great chance, I would say.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Will Republicans go along with some sort of increase in revenues?
GERALD SEIB: You know, right now the initial reactions were no, but the White House argument is two-fold here. They're going to say essentially, look, you-- to the Republicans, you've already done the hard part. You agreed to raise tax rates at the end of last year. So this is the easy stuff. We're proposing closing some loopholes. That's not so hard. And, secondly, these are things that Republicans themselves have at various times in the recent past proposed, these kinds of loophole closings. So you've done the hard stuff and this is stuff you guys have indicated in the past you could live with. So, why not? Well, why not is politics. It's really tough to be a Republican that jumps on board more revenues right now. But that's the play, and that's what the White House is going to try to set up.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And-- and can the President actually convince the people in his party to go along with significant reform of the entitlement programs?
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, there's no evidence of it yet. The Senate Democratic budget, which passed before the President's budget will arrive, said nothing about change in the inflation adjustment on consumer price index, and probably never will. There is a political aspect to this, Bob. The White House believes that it is staking out a position of unvarnished reasonableness, and then if Republicans don't do this, then in the midterm elections in 2014, along with gun control, if that doesn't work, and, possibly, immigration if that doesn't work, the White House can say, look, we are the party of compromise and movement. The Republicans are the party of intransigence and opposition, and with organizing for America and all these other various offshoots that the Democrats are focusing on to win back the seats, they need to get a House majority that will be part of the political argument, and I would say, race one to keep an eye on--the south Carolina one because that special election will be a very early indicator of Democrats having a chance to get back the House in the next term.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And this, of course, is the one that will feature on the Republican side, the former governor Mark Sanford--
MAJOR GARRETT: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --and on the Democratic side, Stephen Colbert, that's true?
MAJOR GARRETT: Elizabeth Colbert Busch. Yes.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --who pronounces it Colbert.
MAJOR GARRETT: Yes.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll-- we'll-- we'll see how that comes out. It looks to me like that any kind of meaningful legislation on gun control is-- may not happen here. Nancy.
NANCY CORDES: Well, we've got a few pieces of bipartisan agreement on gun trafficking, on-- on cutting back on straw purchases, things like that. But there are a lot of people who wanted it to be much bigger--notably Democrats. And they haven't thrown in the towel yet. Senator Schumer, who was here this morning, is now in delicate talks, Senator Manchin of West Virginia as well, with Senator Toomey of Pennsylvania, he's kind of a new entrant into these discussions over is there a way that we can create some kind of bipartisan agreement on background checks that will enable Toomey to get on board? That would be significant. He's got a very good rating with the NRA. If he was able to get behind something, they could then sell that to the wider Senate. And there are a number of senators, Republicans, who have said privately to Democrats, we could get behind this, but only if you get a big-time Republican on board first.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Gerry, do you think there's any chance or anything meaningful like a wheel, a-- a-- a good background check, if nothing else.
GERALD SEIB: I think that's going to depend entirely on how you define meaningful, but I think it's clear that what people thought, people who were advocates of gun control thought two months ago after Connecticut, we're so far back from that now. I mean we're-- we're talking about maybe background checks. We're not talking about magazine increase or decreases in the size of magazines and assault weapons seem to have gone off the table entirely. So compared to what people were talking about just a couple of months ago, the ambitions for the gun control folks have scaled way back already, and-- and that's where we're talking now and it could get worse for them as it goes forward.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Blaine, you used to be involved in what was going on around in Washington, and now you're out writing books. How does it all look to you right now?
BLAINE HARDEN: Well, I'm surprised-- I'm surprised that public-- public revulsion over the shooting seems to have declined over-- over a relatively shout period of time. That-- that-- that is just kind of shocking to me.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think that, that means that-- I mean, what it-- what it-- what is all of this what we're seeing now? What-- what does it say about Washington right now? Has it changed? You've been here a long time, like I have.
BLAINE HARDEN: Well, people don't get together and talk when they disagree. They tend to live in-- in separate-- and good separate worlds.
NANCY CORDES: I will say that gun control advocates feel, many of them, like, you know, we don't have to get everything all at once. Even if we can make some of these steps, it's further than we've gotten in decades. We'll take it. And then we'll fight another day. These things often don't happen all at once. It's going to be step by step.
MAJOR GARRETT: Look, something is better than nothing. And for many, many years, this debate did not exist in Washington at all.
NANCY CORDES: Mm-Hm.
MAJOR GARRETT: It just was completely nullified by political paralysis and fear, and the President believes some of that was his responsibility and he feels badly for it. And you could see right after Newtown, he felt that he had to summon up something within him deeper and more profound on this issue. He's going to be in Connecticut tomorrow. The first lady has another very big event this week; the vice president will have, too. It'll be a concerted, visible, rhetorical push from the White House on this issue, and they are content, as the President said and he really tipped this off on the State of the Union address--vote--not pass--vote. They believe this is a long-term process and the votes will be clarifying on this issue the first time around and may lead to something more successful the second or third time around. The White House does believe this is a long-term process.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.
GERALD SEIB: You know what I-- I found remarkable today was that-- Major and I were talking about this before is that on the immigration bill, people find it remarkable that it's going to go through a regular process--oh, there are going to be hearings, there's going to be a vote. There is going to be a vote on the floor. Then it'll go to conference. Well, that's the way it's supposed to work around here. It's so unusual now that people find it exceptional enough to say, wow, that's what's going to happen to the immigration bill. That's real commentary on how Washington doesn't work to me at least at this point.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, I think you're absolutely right. Thank you all very much.
And we'll be back in a minute to talk about this new book on drones and the CIA.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're back now with the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times correspondent, Mark Mazzetti, who has a new book out Tuesday called The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth. A big excerpt of your book appears today in the Sunday edition of the Times on front page. I-- I think, Mark, what makes your book so valuable, it really is the first detailed, in-depth look at this whole use of drones, which has become certainly the drug of choice in the war on terror, and how it has evolved, as you got into this, what was it that surprised you most?
MARK MAZZETTI (The Way of the Knife): Well, I think what surprised me most is how much this type of warfare, away from the big wars in-- in Iraq and Afghanistan, have come to be embraced by Washington by two Presidents, a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat, both have chosen these wars outside of the warzones in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, as a-- a way to do battle in secret without talking about it with the American public, and it's extraordinary how much it goes on. And-- and another thing that-- that really surprised me is when you wage war in these kinds of ways, the different characters who come in to play who-- who play out-sized roles are-- are really interesting, and some of those characters I tried to explore in the book.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, I mean, for example, we are now training more drone pilots than we are training pilots.
MARK MAZZETTI: That-- that's right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we have different qualifications. In Air Force you have to be a pilot before you can get into the drone program. That's not the case, I think, in the CIA, if I understand it.
MARK MAZZETTI: Well, the-- and-- and in some cases, actually, you do have military pilots actually operating CIA drones. It's amazing how much there's been this convergence over the years between the military and the CIA. In a place like Yemen, you have the CIA running a drone war, the military running a drone war. Sometimes the CIA drones are operated by military pilots. The soldiers have become spies, and the spies have become soldiers. And so it's-- it's-- it's-- it's really this phenomenon over the last decade. I was out in-- in Holloman Air Force base a year ago, which is where they train the drone pilots and-- and, as you said, this is-- this is where the Air Force is going, outside of the cockpits and into the-- the ground trailers.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Who can order the use of a drone? You know, we have a-- we all know what the rules are on using nuclear weapons. It's only the President who can authorize their use. Are there sets of rules under which these-- these weapons are-- are operated? Do they have to answer certain questions and who actually can-- has the power to launch them?
MARK MAZZETTI: There are-- it-- it depends on the country. And right now, the Obama administration is trying to figure out, what they call this playbook, to figure out these rules that you're talking about because they haven't really been worked out. That will be set in stone for years to come and for future Presidents to use. You have, in Pakistan the CIA director can authorize drone strikes or the deputy CIA director. Outside of Pakistan in-- in places like Yemen, that right now has to go through the White House. It has to be signed off formally by John Brennan, who's now the CIA director, but was at the White House, and then, ultimately, by President Obama. So there's different rules for different places, and this is what everyone is trying to wrestle with right now.
BOB SCHIEFFER: There-- there're, obviously, great advantages to using this. I mean no American lives are going to be lost--
MARK MAZZETTI: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --when you launch a drone because they are operated from far, far away from the battlefield. But sometimes there are civilian casualties and there are all kinds of questions. What are the questions that we need to be thinking about on the use of these weapons?
MARK MAZZETTI: Well, I think some of the questions are where to use them. As you said, it's-- it's the drug of choice. There's a seductive quality to this, because the feeling is that there are no risks. But when something is easier to use, you use it more. And so the question is what would be the standard? What's the threshold for the U.S. going to war--and it is war. As you said, a nuclear weapon is so powerful that you developed a whole doctrine so that you never had to use them. With drones we're still trying to work this out. So wh-- what is the threshold? What is the imminence of the threat to the United States for using it? What is the collateral damage? Those types of questions I think are going to be-- have to be worked out for future.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we use them a lot more than people are aware and we've been using them for a long time.
MARK MAZZETTI: We've been using them for a long time and we've been using them for-- for more than a decade in more places than, you know, even have-- have been publicly acknowledged. Hundreds of drone strikes have been carried out. And-- and-- and I think what President Obama, you know, may be doing is ultimately trying to become more public about it, but-- but so far, we haven't really seen too much of that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But your book is fascinating, as you say, you talk about some of the characters who are involved and then they become involved in the program and the way these-- the way these drones are used. But, you know we're now hearing that they're going to transfer them away from the CIA and put them under the Pentagon's control. Why is that important? And why and what's that all about?
MARK MAZZETTI: Part of it has to do with this idea of getting the CIA back to spying, its traditional mission, out of the paramilitary business, really, a decade of war has changed the CIA dramatically. Part of it is this idea that maybe it will be more transparent. If you have the military doing it, you have to at some point acknowledge the strikes whereas the CIA and a covert action authority doesn't have to acknowledge the strikes. So part of it is to maybe become a little bit more transparent with-- with the American public. Although, right now it's unclear how-- how long that would take to do the transfer and whether it would take place in places like Pakistan, will the military carry out strikes in Pakistan that are acknowledged by the U.S. government? Right now the Pakistani government doesn't want the U.S. doing that. So-- so there's a lot of tricky issues that haven't been worked out, which is why I think it will actually take far more time for this to happen.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do-- are there other countries that have drones or is that just us? And if the-- and how close are other countries getting them?
MARK MAZZETTI: A lot of the countries, a lot of countries are developing them. Israel, actually, was-- were the pioneers for using drones. Iran is developing drones. The Russians are developing drones. There's a lot of countries that-- that are-- that-- that we are planning to give our drones to. So-- so this is going to be the sort of future of warfare, and these rules that-- that we're talking about that the U.S. is setting are going to be used by other countries in some ways that the United States may not like. So-- so that's what's to come in this way of war.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Mark, thank you very much.
MARK MAZZETTI: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: It's a fascinating subject. It's a fascinating book. We'll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that's about it for us today. We'll be back here right same place, same time, same station. So thanks for watching. And we hope to see you then on FACE THE NATION.