"Face the Nation" transcripts December 23, 2012: Keene, Hutchison, Warner, Scott, Affleck

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on December 23, 2012, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: National Rifle Association President David Keene, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., Senator-designate Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and actor Ben Affleck; plus, a panel with CBS News correspondents Major Garrett and Margaret Brennan, and Politico's Mike Allen.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. We start this morning with David Keene, who is the president of the National Rifle Association. Friday the NRA made its first public statement since the Newtown shooting, and the reaction from gun control activists was scathing, no surprise there. The reaction from many others, though, was incredulous. Lloyd Grove of "The Daily Beast" summed up the reaction by saying the reviews were so brutal, they would have closed a Broadway show on opening night. Was this news conference a mistake, Mr. Keene?

KEENE: Not at all. And, fortunately, we're not on Broadway. This isn't a joke. You know, we remained silent right after Newtown because we didn't think it was appropriate to comment at that time. But now we've come out. We've looked at it. And the question on everybody's minds that we were trying to address is what do you do to prevent this from happening in the future? You know, it was interesting, Bob, because I was -- that week I was in Israel. And they had a spate of school shootings in the 70s and on, and then they decided that they needed to have security at their schools. They started out with volunteers. They eventually institutionalized it and now they have armed security at the schools, and they've stopped the problem. In this country -- and although the reaction from our critics was, well, this is a crazy idea, the fact is, 23,000 schools right now have armed security guards. They have them in Chicago. They have them in many schools in Virginia. It was proposed by Bill Clinton the year after the Columbine shooting, and they set up legislation called Cops in the Schools program. It's not been fully funded. A lot of schools don't have it. And what we were saying is that really the question that parents across this country are asking is how do we protect our kids?

SCHIEFFER: A couple of reactions. The president of the International Association of Police Chiefs says, number one, this is totally impractical. He says he happens to be the chief in the Fremont, California. He said, if you put a police officer in every school in Fremont, he'd have to put half his police force there. We all know the budget constraints that all these governments are under. On the other side, the president of the National Education Association says we do not need guns in schools, period.

KEENE: Well, they need protection. The kids need protection. Bill Clinton thought they needed protection. The Israelis have tested it, and it works there. You know, what we've suggested, that each school district and each school administrator look at the problem that they face. Right now, you have a mix. You have federally funded officers in many schools. You have a mix of funding in some other schools. You have, actually, volunteers in some places where administrators are armed with concealed carry and all that. We're not saying that it ought to be this or that, that a one- size-fits-all program will work. What we are saying is that the first obligation that we have is to protect our children. And the way you do that is you look at the problem. And you know, most Americans agree...

SCHIEFFER: Don't you try to also try to get some of these guns off the streets, get some of these guns out of markets? Every study shows that, when a society -- the fewer the guns, the less homicides deaths you have.

KEENE: That's not true.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: Well, actually, it is true. That comes from the Harvard School of Public Health. Its studies show conclusively that there are more firearms -- when there are more firearms, there are more homicides. In Australia, we have seen homicides go down dramatically when you...

KEENE: You know, I understand -- I know that.

SCHIEFFER: Well, then...

KEENE: Well, Bob, let me just really briefly -- we're not talking about Australia, but in fact the homicide rate in Australia and the United States during that same period was dropping at roughly the same percentage. We have the lowest homicide rate that we've had in decades, with more guns than ever.

SCHIEFFER: But the reason -- the reason that we have fewer homicides right now -- more people are getting shot. The number of people getting shot is up 20 percent. Homicides are down for the same reason that deaths are down on the battlefield. You have better emergency room coverage. You have better -- better medicine.

KEENE: And that's good. But, you know, thinking of this whole -- you know, in 2010, the FBI statistics show that more people in this country were beaten to death than were killed by long guns of all kinds, including the so-called assault weapons. Now, anybody killed by any method is a tragedy. I'm not arguing that it isn't. What I am saying, Bob, is that, when you look at the problem -- let's say we passed Dianne Feinstein's bill. How would that stop the next school shooting? It wouldn't. Because it doesn't take guns off the street, and if you did, you couldn't. So that doesn't solve the problem.

SCHIEFFER: But doesn't it...

KEENE: You've got mental health problems... SCHIEFFER: ... make it more difficult?

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Keene...

KEENE: It doesn't. You know, it doesn't because...

SCHIEFFER: ... if a man had walked in that school in Connecticut with a baseball bat, he might have given a couple of people a concussion, but all those children would not be dead.

KEENE: Well, you know, the fact that something is misused, whether it's a baseball bat or the mass killing in a Chinese school with an ax and a knife, doesn't mean that you ban baseball bats, axes and knives or even guns.

SCHIEFFER: Nobody is asking that.

KEENE: What it means is that you protect the innocent, on the one hand, and you try to keep weapons out of the hands of those who are likely to commit such crimes. You know, one of the problems -- and the public -- this is reflected in public attitudes -- is what's wrong with our mental health system? Because a lot of these people are not even -- are not even -- when they've been seen as having problems, nobody does anything about it. In Connecticut, it's very difficult to have outpatient treatment because of ACLU lawsuits. I'm not saying that every mental patient is a potential killer. I'm not saying that everybody that watches a video is a potential killer. That's not true. But neither is everybody who owns a gun a potential killer.

SCHIEFFER: Well, of course they're not. I had a gun when I was 12 years old. I got a double-barreled shotgun.

KEENE: Do you still have it?

SCHIEFFER: But what I'm saying...

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: What I'm saying is that shouldn't we be putting these things on a higher shelf so the mentally ill and the deranged people can't get to them? And to do that, you're going to have to tighten this up. It is harder for me to get a driver's license than it would be to buy a gun. Why is that a good thing?

KEENE: Well, you're -- you ought to be able to get a driver's license at your age.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you know what I had to do to get a driver's license, David?

KEENE: I know what you have to do.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just tell you what I had to do. I had to go to the doctor and get a complete physical. I had to go to another doctor to get an eye test, and then I had to go down and take the driver's test. I got a driver's license. I don't mind doing that. I think that's a good thing. Why should -- why should I be able to just drive out there to Virginia and buy myself a gun?

KEENE: Well, there's a difference between a driver's license -- driving is a privilege -- and owning a firearm, which is a constitutional right. The government has to show why you shouldn't have a right to exercise your second amendment rights. In other words, there are prohibited people who are not allowed to buy firearms, felons, minors...

SCHIEFFER: Of course.

KEENE: And that's all legitimate. We have for, since the late 1960s, have been urging that those people who were adjudicated to be mentally ill be included in the national database. When you buy a gun, Bob, you go to the store and there's an instant check. Twenty-three states have not put any of that data in there, in many cases.

SCHIEFFER: I don't disagree that we ought to have some record of those people, but shouldn't we also have a record of the people who have firearms.

KEENE: I think not.

SCHIEFFER: Why not?

KEENE: We know we check them. In this country we don't like to maintain huge databases of everybody. We have privacy rights. We have constitutional rights. And what -- the way the system...

SCHIEFFER: We also have to show an identification when we get on an airplane.

KEENE: Sure we do. Sure we do.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that's a bad thing?

KEENE: Well, I don't think it's a bad thing, no. And you have to -- when you go to buy a gun, you have to fill out a whole form. You're checked with the FBI and others through the instant check system. And then what the law is, that after a period of time, they can't maintain that as a federal gun registry. But they check you when you purchase that firearm, and they should. And if you're a prohibited purchaser, you're not allowed...

SCHIEFFER: What about when you go to a gun show?

KEENE: Pardon me?

SCHIEFFER: What about when you go to a gun show?

KEENE: When you go to a gun show, Bob, 98 percent of the guns that you buy there are also checked, because most of the people that have tables at gun shows are dealers and they have to...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: But don't you agree we could tighten up...

KEENE: A private purchaser purchasing from another private individual -- that's different.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this, the rubber hits the road question, will you oppose as the National Rifle Association any attempt to tighten the gun laws, to do what even the International Association of Police Chiefs says is a good idea, and that is to ban these military-style assault weapons? Would you oppose that? Will you continue to oppose that?

KEENE: We will continue to oppose a ban on semiautomatic weapons that are used for perfectly legitimate purposes. These aren't military weapons. If we equipped our army with the AR-15, we'd be beaten by every third world -- you know, every third world dictatorship in the country. Military weapons are fully automatic weapons and that's illegal. You don't get those. That's not what we're talking about. The impression often is, Bob, that that is what we're talking about, but it isn't. We're talking about sporting arms -- you know the AR-15 is the largest selling -- the highest selling...

SCHIEFFER: How many rounds can these weapons discharge, say, in five seconds?

KEENE: Well, they fire when you put trigger.

SCHIEFFER: Sure and they keep firing.

KEENE: Just as your shotgun -- not your shotgun, but most shotguns do. No, they don't keep firing, that's a fully automatic weapon. These are not fully automatic weapons.

SCHIEFFER: But these are dangerous, even Justice Scalia in the opinion that said everybody has a right to own a gun said that there should be no doubt that this should not interfere with putting limits on what he called unusual weapons.

KEENE: Any constitutional right, any constitutional guarantee, the First Amendment, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, Second Amendment, reasonable restriction against felons and the others are there. You know, in the it next few years, there are going to be dozens of lawsuits brought to say what is and what isn't reasonable restrictions. We'll argue those. And we're perfectly willing to, but today, Bob the question isn't how many bullets are going to fit in a magazine, is the gun that somebody has got ugly or not ugly? The question is can we keep guns out of the hands of people who are potential killers, that's hard because they're hard to identify. And can we protect our kids? That's what it's about. And that's what we're trying to respond to. That's what the public wants. And it's something that's been proven. It's something that Bill Clinton has suggested. It's something that we think is necessary. Now, that can be funded by the federal government, by the state government, you have volunteers, it can be done by school districts, but every school district ought to look at it and say we have these kids in our charge during the day, and we need to have a plan to protect them.

SCHIEFFER: I don't think it is a question -- I think it is a question that is certainly worth exploring, but what I found odd about your news conference -- and maybe it's my bias, I don't know what it is -- but I found it odd that when you came on television at this news conference Friday, you seemed to blame the mentally ill, you seemed to blame Hollywood, you seemed to blame the media, the video game manufacturers. You did not seen to think that your policies have had anything at all to do with this.

KEENE: Well, we don't think they have.

SCHIEFFER: You see no responsibility? You don't see...

KEENE: We're living in a country, a free country, in which the people have a right to exercise their Second Amendment rights. We're living in a country wherein the last few decades as gun ownership has increased, violent crime has fallen. What we have, though, in this country are -- and in any country, a percentage of people who are frankly either evil or crazy. And the question is how do you prevent them from acting out their fantasies or their desires, that's a problem. Now we can't condemn, and we don't condemn the mentally ill. Most people that are mentally ill are not a threat to anybody, but what we are saying is that those people who are potentially dangerous -- and in many cases, including school shooters -- the people have been tagged as being potential dangers.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this -- if you claim the media, video games, Hollywood are the main problems, then why are gun deaths in every other industrialized nation, including Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, France -- why are their gun deaths so much lower than ourselves? I mean, John Howard, a very conservative prime minister -- former prime minister of Australia said we don't want the American disease in Australia. Why is it that all these other countries don't seem to have this problem?

KEENE: Well, they have a homicide problem. They have a violent crime problem. In Britain, it's four times what ours is. They don't have as many guns, that doesn't prevent killing. It doesn't prevent mayhem. It doesn't prevent violent crime.

SCHIEFFER: You don't really that believe people armed with baseball bats can somehow kill more people than people armed with guns.

KEENE: Well in this country, more people are beaten to death than are killed by long guns.

SCHIEFFER: The people who are surviving gunshot wounds now, it's because we have better medical help, David, for the same reason...

KEENE: That's good.

SCHIEFFER: Yes, it's good. It's the same reason more of our people are surviving on the battlefields, but that's not the end of it. Why do you -- why are you so against -- I know the things you're for-- why are you so against trying to tighten these laws, making it harder to buy guns?

KEENE: We're willing to debate those questions. I think they should. We should. They're important policy questions, but the first thing we have to do it protect our kids. We're willing to debate the whole question of these semi-automatic so-called assault weapons.

SCHIEFFER: You are?

KEENE: We debated it before. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. We had what Senator Feinstein is suggesting. It was allowed to expire. The FBI, Justice Department and others who studied it said it made no difference. So if we're looking at things that are effective, let's talk about them. But first let's talk about protecting our kids.

SCHIEFFER: All right. David Keene, thank you very much.

KEENE: My pleasure, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: OK, good to see you. We're going to turn next to two Senators who have top ratings from the NRA, a Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, and in Dallas, Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. I'm going to start with Senator Hutchison. Senator Hutchison, you represent a state that loves its guns. There's no question about that. My home state of Texas. what do you make of what David Keene just said? Do you think it's time to do some things other than what he's advocating, and that is putting more police in the schools?

HUTCHISON: Oh, I do-- Bob, I have to say, I don't object to having more armed policemen in schools. I certainly think that at the local level, they should make this decision, because that is going to be accepted in some places and not accepted in some places. So I think that is it one part of a big picture that we need to look at. I think, certainly, security in our schools, including one entrance, one entrance to schools.

SCHIEFFER: What about -- what about other things, senator? Do you see other things that could be done here? I think Senator Hutchison has somehow lost contact with us here. So Senator Warner, you're here. You're a Democrat. You've always get a top rating from the NRA. What do you think about what Mr. Keene just said? Do you think it's time to kind of move ahead and do some other stuff?

WARNER: Well Bob, I'm troubled by-- and I apologize about my voice. I think this may be a divine intervention because we didn't deal with the fiscal cliff.

SCHIEFFER: You think that's punishment?

WARNER: Punishment for not doing our job. But I was proud of the fact that I always had an "A" rating from the NRA. I own firearms. I think people ought to be able to legally hunt or target shoot. But I know when that crisis hits, my three college daughters came home and said, "dad, you work up there. What are you going to do?" And to me, simply saying existing gun laws are enough, the status quo is acceptable, just didn't pass my gut check as a father. And when i hear from the NRA is there may be some additional schools, but where do we stop? Are we then going to go in to preschools? Are we going to go into parochial schools? If my memory is correct, there actually was an armed individual at Columbine years ago, and it didn't prevent that tragedy. So I think we need a comprehensive approach. I don't have a specific bill right now. I'll look at all the proposals. I think it looks at mental health. I think it looks at protecting our schools, but I also think it looks at these high-volume magazines, you know, that can fire off so many rounds. If some of these-- we can't stop every crazy person from taking on actions. But there are, as you were trying to point out with the earlier guest, 30,000 deaths, gun-related deaths a year in America. No single law is going to stop all of those, but if we can cut it in half, or cut it by 20 percent, or even cut it by a tenth, that's still thousands of lives and maybe we wouldn't have some of those horrible images as we see right now, these children being buried.

SCHIEFFER: I think we reestablished communications with Texas. Senator Hutchison, you were talking about you do suggest, at least schools being able to put police in schools if they think it's needed, but how about some of these other things? What about this idea of a ban on assault weapons? What about, as Senator Warner is talking about, restricting the sales of these magazines that have 30 rounds in a clip? How do you feel about that?

HUTCHISON: You know, I think we ought to be looking at where the real danger is, like those large clips, I think that does need to be looked at. We do have a ban on assault weapons, as was stated earlier. But it's the semiautomatics, and those large magazines that can be fired off very quickly. You do have to pull the trigger each time, but it's -- it's very quick. I think we should be looking at those mega- opportunities as one of the things that might be looked at. And we need to talk to real hunters who say what is a sporting rifle capability that continues the sport? We need to talk to people in all areas. But, Bob, what hasn't been mentioned, you know, in this conversation, is also the violence in our society. What children and kids are seeing even on P.G. movies and these video games like Black Ops 2 and those kinds of things. I mean, really, we have a more violent society in general, and I think a lot of it has to be looked at in that framework.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you, Senator Warner, what is the romance of these assault-style weapons? I mean, I've -- like Senator Hutchison, I know a lot of people that hunt, but I don't know anybody that goes hunting with one of those. Why do -- what's the fascination with it?

WARNER: You know, Bob, I don't know, either. I've -- I've shot some of these weapons on shooting ranges, but the idea that you might have to simply reload after a clip of 10 shells does not seem to be an undue infringement. Again, that's not going to be a perfect solution, but it ought to be one of the things talked about. You know, in my gut, as I said, enough is enough at this point. What I hope and pray is that, as we get into the Christmas season and the memories of this tragedy fade, we don't let this issue recede until six, eight, nine months, and we see another tragedy. And the notion that we can simply, you know, arm our schools -- and where, as I said earlier, is it just public schools? Is it parochial schools? Is it preschools? Would it be our churches? Where do you draw the line?

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask both of you -- I want to just shift quickly. Senator Hutchison, you're coming back if they call the Senate back after Christmas. You're getting ready to retire. Do you think they're going to get past this fiscal cliff?

HUTCHISON: I do. I have an abiding faith that we will not leave -- and this is going to take presidential leadership, hands-on leadership; it's going to take both houses of Congress and everyone to realize we can't let taxes go up on working people in this country. And the Bush tax cuts are tax cuts that did help our economy in the beginning. We are in the doldrums now because of the debt and the deficits that are dragging down our economy, as well as the over- regulation of small business. I think we've got to do something to do a patch now, which, clearly, on December 27, when Mark Warner and I go back, it is going to be a patch because, in four days, we can't solve everything.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me ask...

HUTCHISON: But I think we need to stop this fiscal cliff at a reasonable salary level and then start working on the spending cuts.

SCHIEFFER: About 30 seconds, Senator. What -- will there be a small deal?

WARNER: I think there's unfortunately only going to be a small deal. But unless we get to $4 trillion, we're just kicking the can. Remember, we took $4.5 trillion out of our revenue stream. We're only talking about -- with the Bush tax cuts, we're only talking about putting about a third of that back in. At the same time, we doubled defense spending, created Homeland Security, created a new drug benefit. And we're all getting a lot older. We have to realize it's going to take revenues, spending cuts and entitlement reform.

SCHIEFFER: So you think they'll get past it?

WARNER: I think we'll get past it, but we've got to get to the big deal.

SCHIEFFER: All right. We'll be back in one minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Sometimes in Washington, it all comes at once, the good, the bad, the inexplicable. On Friday we remembered one of the best of us at a memorial service for Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, a true hero who lost his arm in World War II, one of the last of the greatest generation, a man who came to Washington before compromise was a dirty word. The service came on a day when we also saw Washington at its worst, the president and congressional leaders leaving town after partisanship again prevailed and they were unable to find a way to stave off what could be real economic chaos. And what other word but inexplicable could one use to describe the news conference called by the National Rifle Association? Inouye's generation will forever be remembered for its common sense, the inner strength that got it through the Great Depression, and above all, its courage, the courage that led it to confront Nazism, the greatest evil the world has ever known. The president said he hoped people would drink some egg nog and sing a few Christmas carols and then come back to Washington and start over on finding ways to solve problems. Maybe we could also reflect, just for a moment, on the courage of Inouye's generation and what that has meant to those of us who came after. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now. For most you, we'll be back with our interview with actor, director, activist Ben Affleck, plus Senate-designate Tim Scott from South Carolina, as well as our political roundtable. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: And we welcome now Ben Affleck, film star and director whose new movie Argo is already being mentioned as a strong Oscar contender. He is a political activist and founder of the Eastern Congo Initiative. And he made a sobering appearance before the House armed services committee, told them horrifying statistics about what's happening there, not the least of which is that literally millions of people have died there since 1998. Congo is now the deadliest place, the site of deadliest conflict since World War II. Thank you very much for coming.

AFFLECK: Thanks for having me.

SCHIEFFER: How did you get interested in Congo?

AFFLECK: You know, I got interested because someone years ago -- 2005 or something -- asked me to participate in some philanthropic thing around Africa to the except I would hold a kid's hand at the hospital and get my picture taken. And I didn't want to be a dilettante so I thought I better read up on this. And in the course of reading, I came across some paragraph that said, well, of course there's no tragedy like the one in Congo where millions of people have died in the last few years. It just blew me away. I mean, really, really blew me away and made a big impression on me. And I thought well, if I don't know about this, I'm sure there are others who don't as well.

SCHIEFFER: So you went there. You have been there a number of times. And teal me about your organization and what exactly it does.

AFFLECK: Well, it's called the Eastern Congo Initiative. And the first year after I read about it I started traveling, because I really wanted to learn about it. I wanted to construct something that I thought would be effective. So I met with a lot of people. I traveled to a lot of countries and focused on Eastern Congo ultimately. And we do kind of like a top-town, bottom-up. You know, from the bottom up we do grant making to Congolese organizations only, folks who are already in the area, already working who just need the support of resources. And I do a top-down advocacy, like being on your show and testifying before the House.

SCHIEFFER: You reveal some absolutely stunning statistics in your testimony-- 900,000 people have been dislocated in the country since January. Two out of three women in some areas have been raped. I mean, this might be of must be right now the worst place in the world.

AFFLECK: I would think so, yeah. It's certainly the place where the numbers look the worst. One in five children dies before age of five. You know, as we said, millions have died from war, preventable disease, and hunger. So, you know, when a place is in in this kind of crisis, and even a small uprising or war displaces a million people, you know, it's obviously in as bad a state as you can possibly and it usually falls one, two, or three failed state index and it calls out, frankly, for our attention, for our commitment and that's what I'm trying to do.

SCHIEFFER: What did you ask the congress to do today?

AFFLECK: Well, the main thing that I asked the congress to do is appoint a high-level, presidential level envoy, temporary envoy, to the region. And that would involve basically somebody who really has the ear of the president of the United States, and the authority that comes with that, to go to the region and deal with the regional actors who are a part of this conflict -- Uganda, Rwanda, and Kabila in Kinshasa, the capital of Congo. And to try to it convene and bring together western nations as well to look for solutions to some of these problems. We have a lot of levers that we can use diplomatically even, I'm not talking about boots on the ground, American tax dollars. I'm just talking about paying attention this and using the leverage of the moral authority of the United States to save lives.

SCHIEFFER: What has to happen? What would you like to see happen?

AFFLECK: Well, I think the first thing really that has to happen is there needs to be security in this country. Right now, there is a U.N. peacekeeping force of about 17,000 soldiers that is complete feckless. They really haven't done anything. Their mandate is to protect civilians. They haven't done that. They need a leadership change and a mandate change and they need to be completely reevaluated. In a larger sense, this is a country that needs security sector reform. I mean, they have no functioning army, not only do they have no real functioning army,. the army as it exists preys on the population rather than defending it. The army is responsible for 40 percent of the rapes in the country. There is no judicial system, no functioning police system. So those are the things that need to be rehabilitated to begin with so you can create a space to develop a civil society.

SCHIEFFER: You know, you are interested in a lot more than film. Your new one is a good one. I want to ask you about that, but have you ever thought about running for public office yourself? The reason I say that, this week with mentions of John Kerry being possibly the next Secretary of State or at least nominated for that, some people have actually written maybe Ben Affleck ought to run for that seat.

AFFLECK: Well, for one thing, the state of Massachusetts currently has two extraordinary senators, So there's no -- there is no vacancy.

SCHIEFFER: Well, there might be, though.

AFFLECK: Well, one never knows. I'm not one to get into conjecture. I do have a great fondness and admiration for the political process in this country, a big deal for me to come down here and be on your show that I've watch so much but I'm not going to get into speculation about my political future. I like to be involved. Right now I'm really happy being involved from the outside in government, advocating for Congolese, taking this movie that I made, Argo, and it's really become a springboard for dialogue about our relationship with Iran, which is -- as Hillary Clinton said the most pressing foreign policy issue today. So I have got a lot on my plate.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let's talk a little bit about this movie. I covered the Washington end of that when it was all going on, and I must say, because it was sort of overcome by events, later, greater events, but that is a wonderful story. And it's pretty much true, the way you told it. I mean, it's pretty accurate as far as the history.

AFFLECK: Yes, the story is true. The story is absolutely true. There were these six hostages who escaped the embassy during the takeover, who hid out in the Canadian ambassador's residence, who ultimately rescued by the CIA and trained to pose as a movie crew. I looked at a lot of research footage and I lobbied at your face quite a bit -- you don't look a day older than you did from 32 years ago. But it's really exceptional. I mean, it was a story -- you know, it's the inception of our antagonistic relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it put into motion events that we're looking at now and we're looking at down the road in terms of how we are going to navigate our relationship with Iran.

SCHIEFFER: Where did you actually film it?

AFFLECK: We filmed it in Turkey, mostly. And the sad thing was I thought we went to Turkey I thought we would be able to get a lot of Farsi-speaking Persians, and unfortunately virtually none of the Iranians in Turkey would be in the country because they said, listen, if we appear in an American-made movie, the reprisals will be on our relatives will be terrible. In fact, the -- I read the Fars News Agency review of the movie. And they said that we did not, the in fact, make as much money as reported, but that the studio bought $100 million worth of tickets and handed them out to people at random. So, I'm hoping the studio does that at my next movie, too.

SCHIEFFER: I was going to say, do you think we could get them to do something for the ratings here, maybe we can buy -- let's buy some TV sets or something.

AFFLECK: I loved it.

SCHIEFFER: Well, it is a fine movie. And...

AFFLECK: Thank you very, very much.

SCHIEFFER: And how did you get on to it?

AFFLECK: You know, I was sent the script and I was a Middle Eastern Studies major in college, so I had been look at developing a story about the overthrow of Mosaddeq who was the prime minister in Iran by the United States and Great Britain. It was a really compelling story. And then I got this other script about Iran and immediately I was drawn to it because it focused on things that I was interesting in-- themes about storytelling, about the sort of unintended consequences of revolution. In some ways the Shah is revealed to be -- our relationship with the Shah is revealed to be very similar to our relationship with Mubarak. You know, they both look western, they both appealed to our sensibility, our sort of pro- western idea of what a leader should look like there. And we overlooked the corruption, the cronyism, the oppression underneath, and both were overthrown. And when both were overthrown the revolutions that subsequently took place were not necessarily in our best interest.

SCHIEFFER: Ben Affleck, a pleasure to have you, and good luck with the movie. When do you go back to the Congo?

AFFLECK: Next -- in February, I think. I happy to go back. And you're welcome to come with me.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you so much.

AFFLECK: Thanks very much.

SCHIEFFER: And we'll be right back with the new senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Joining us now is congressman Tim Scott who was named to succeed South Carolina's Jim DeMint in the Senate. He will be just the seventh African American senator ever. The first African American senator from the south since Reconstruction. Congratulations, congressman.

SCOTT: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: Welcome to Face the Nation. I take it you are intending to run for this senate seat in 2014.

SCOTT: 2014 we'll be back on the ballot, yes sir.

SCHIEFFER: And how long have you been in the congress?

SCOTT: I've been in the congress for -- I just got elected to my second term. I have been in public office for about 18 years serving the good people throughout South Carolina.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you first about the whole business with the National Rifle Association. Their idea seems basically to be just add armed security to all of our nations' schools. Do you think that's feasible or is it a good idea?

SCOTT: Well, I think the president has just established a committee to take a serious, holistic look at what we need to do as a nation to make sure that our kids are safe. To rush to judgment, I think, is a bit premature on what we should do. I think, after we have the committee's report, we should take a very serious look at whatever it takes to keep our kids safe at school. We don't know what that is yet. And we're just finishing the week of so many funerals. We should -- we should continue to pray for the family members.

SCHIEFFER: But would you be in favor of changing some laws, like, for example, banning these assault weapons?

SCOTT: I would love to see what comes out of the committee. I think, with Vice President Biden putting together a holistic approach to the challenges that we face as a nation, looking at the opportunities that we have to seriously address all the issues from mental illness to other issues, understanding what happened and why. After we have those answers, we'll be in a much better position to decide the path forward.

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff. You know, the speaker took a deal to the president and then took it to his own caucus, and he didn't have the votes. He couldn't deliver the votes to guarantee his own proposal. What happens now?

SCOTT: Well, I think it's important for us to note that the House has acted already. The House -- we've passed sequestration on four occasions. We've extended all the tax cuts. And now we wait for a response from the other side. We stand prepared to be here in Washington whenever the president or the Senate has a proposal that we can take and act on.

SCHIEFFER: But, you know, Congressman, I mean, with all respect, it seems like both sides seem to be, "Well, we're waiting for them. We're waiting for this. We're waiting for that." But the fact is nothing ever gets done. Is this actually going to stand? Do you think that this Congress, Democrats, Republicans, the Senate and the House, will let us go over this so-called fiscal cliff?

SCOTT: That's a really good question. And that's one of the reasons why I'm pretty excited about the fact that we have already acted. We acted several months ago to extend the tax cuts for all Americans. We don't have to go over the cliff. There is a piece of legislation that has passed the House, which is good news...

SCHIEFFER: Well, Craig Shirley, who is a Republican operative, author, observer, was quoted as saying that "If we were in a parliamentary system now, what happened to Speaker Boehner would have been viewed as a vote of no confidence." Do you think Speaker Boehner ought to step aside and let somebody else try to get this done?

SCOTT: Speaker Boehner will be the speaker next year, without any question. The onus right now is on Senator Reid and the president to come up with a solution, make it a piece of legislation, pass it through the Senate, present it to the House, and let's get back to the bargaining table. The American people deserve for both houses to do something and ask the president to sign it.

SCHIEFFER: Well, are you saying that the House, Speaker Boehner, should take no responsibility for this impasse that we've come to? Isn't some of the onus on him?

SCOTT: I would say without any question that, all year long, we've seen from the leadership in the House at least a clear line of what we're willing to do. What we haven't seen come out of the Senate yet is a single piece of legislation that addresses the crisis.

SCHIEFFER: You know, it's looking like a pretty active political season coming up down there in your home state of South Carolina. You're going to have two senators -- two Senate seats open. And now we're hearing that Governor -- former governor Mark Sanford, who left the governorship under a cloud, may actually come back and run for his old congressional seat. What do you hear about that?

SCOTT: My understanding is that we may have 25 or 30 candidates running for that first congressional district seat. The interesting thing is, when you have a special election, people can get involved and have an opportunity to make their case. This is going to be a very active primary. I think it starts some time in late March or early April, that the citizens of the first district will have an opportunity to have their voice heard through their vote, and then two weeks later, there will obviously be a runoff because, with that many candidates, we'll have a lot to -- to say grace over.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Congressman, congratulations on your appointment.

SCOTT: Thank you very much.

SCHIEFFER: We hope we'll see you from time to time here on "Face the Nation."

SCOTT: Thank you, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you so much, and we'll be back in one minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: And back now with our political roundtable, Mike Allen, the chief White House correspondent for Politico; Margaret Brennan, our State Department correspondent; and our chief White House correspondent, Major Garrett. So, gentlemen, isn't it a shame we don't have anything really to talk about?

(LAUGHTER)

Nothing much going on around here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What a slow news week.

SCHIEFFER: Yeah, slow -- slow news week, here, as we head into Christmas.

(LAUGHTER)

Mike, I've got to ask you, do you -- what about this Ben Affleck for -- for the Senate? Do you think he might do that?

ALLEN: I don't. I think that there's a reason that Senator Al Franken is one of the few celebrities that actually gets into Congress. But your conversation with him made it clear that he wanted to be talked about. Someone else who wants to be talked about is Ted Kennedy Jr., the senator's son, who we're told is going to announce today or tomorrow whether or not he'll go for Senator Kerry's seat.

SCHIEFFER: And do you think, if he doesn't decide to seek that Senate seat, will he try for something else, do you think?

ALLEN: I think that's right, Bob. He lives -- it's a little awkward for him because he lives in Connecticut. He's not D-Mass. He summers at Hyannisport, actually in President Kennedy's old house. We're told that it's not a matter of whether he'll run but where. People who saw him at the Democratic Convention and were struck by how much he was his father's son, the booming voice, the passion for health care. So if he doesn't go for this Senate seat, we think that he'll run for something in Connecticut down the road.

SCHIEFFER: I think, basically, on Affleck, I don't think he'll probably run in the end, but I think what he was doing was letting people know that he's not shutting the door to the idea. I think the next step, he'll look out the window, see if he sees the ground swelling out there...

(LAUGHTER)

... and if he does, then he -- he might do it.

GARRETT: And there's a practical side to all this as well. He knows he's advocating for certain things, and one of the ways to keep his name visible and the advocacy he's pushing is to talk on two different levels, the Hollywood advocacy and possible political candidate. He's trying to, I think, leverage both to maintain attention, to the degree he can, on the cause he's working on.

SCHIEFFER: And then this thing down in South Carolina, where you've got the former governor, Mark Sanford, he of the Argentinean walk, or whatever it was, remember?

(LAUGHTER)

ALLEN: Is that what they call it now?

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: Yeah, I guess his wife has decided she's not going to -- his former wife has decided she's not going to run. We're going to have a lot of politics to cover next year. There's no question about that. Margaret, let me ask you, what is the latest news on Benghazi? We had this report out. You had two officials from the State Department come before the Congress. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Clinton remains out of sight, recovering from this concussion that she apparently suffered when she fell down because she was dehydrated from the stomach virus or something. Do we have any more details on what -- how that happened or -- where did she hit her head? Do we know?

(CROSSTALK)

BRENNAN: Well, it was last Saturday that they decided that she -- this concussion was serious enough for her to warrant staying at home. But we don't believe it happened that day in particular. But the timing is, obviously, critical in terms of what you're talking about with Benghazi, because she was supposed to testify this past week. She's since indicated she's willing to do something perhaps in mid-January with Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs to answer some of the questions. But in the meantime, this report has come out, been harshly critical of the State Department, and the place is really sort of reeling. I mean, you have the top three security officials within diplomatic security forced out the door. And you've got a heck of a job lined up if Senator Kerry does become the next Secretary of State, for him to appoint managers who can overhaul security and intelligence at this place.

SCHIEFFER: But in all seriousness, do we have any information on this concussion? I mean, when it happened, how serious it was? I mean, it's just like -- it's just a cone of silence has descended over this whole thing.

BRENNAN: Well, her spokesperson has released statements on behalf the doctors who have treated her at George Washington University Hospital and others basically verifying what they have passed on, which is severe dehydration after that whirlwind trip through Europe. I was along with her on that. And it was quite a hectic schedule. After that, this stomach bug, which others had, also, on the trip, overcame her, and she suffered this concussion. It's not clear when she's coming back.

ALLEN: And Margaret, is this congruent with what you're hearing in the building. Even people in the building don't know, that even people at the top levels of that department are also getting their news from these statements, know very little about what she's doing, how she's doing. And what a twist for her, right, this amazing run, unquestioned praise for four years, and all of a sudden this bad report, sort of weird absence. Politico today reporting that Chelsea Clinton plans to take a higher role in the next months. She's been doing some charity work through the Clinton Foundation, Sandy recovery. She's been doing some...

SCHIEFFER: So what is she going to do? Is she going to run for something, too?

ALLEN: You know, a lot of Democrats hoped that she would run a congressional seat. We're told that's not the case. But she'll be out there sort of as the Clinton face, while Secretary Clinton is getting ready for what a lot of people think will be a presidential run.

GARRETT: This lack of disclosure, I think is troublesome. I mean, I really do think there should be information, more data, more disclosure about what happened, when it happened, and some ability to question those who are treating her. She's a very important government official.

Look, I think...

ALLEN: And she's a Clinton.

GARRETT: And from her own perspective if she has a political future, I think this ends her reign -- to pick up Mike's point -- in an uncomfortable way. It just -- there's a lack of disclosure that I think the public looks at and says -- that raises unnecessary questions.

BRENNAN: And that isn't to say that the press isn't asking, we certainly are. However, you know we do get some readouts on her schedule. We were told -- oh, she was placing calls, having to come up with the U.S. response to North Korea firing these missiles. You know, she's in coordination with New York on that. She's monitoring the Syrian crisis. She...

SCHIEFFER: So as far as we know she is working from home.

BRENNAN: She is working from home, she's not keeping a public schedule.

SCHIEFFER: I have got to ask Major to bring us up to speed on the fiscal cliff and what happens now?

GARRETT: There are no conservations going on, nothing has happened over this weekend. Someone who is very senior in the Democratic senatorial leadership used a reference to a movie I quite enjoy, The Princess Bride, where Miracle Max says looking at Wesley, this thing is mostly dead. It will take a miracle to revive it. I think that's where we are. I think even the prospect of a small deal grows less and less possible as we come back next week.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Mark Warner just said he thinks there will be a smaller deal. What is he talking about?

GARRETT: What is a small deal? That's the -- what can get 60 votes in the Senate and what can pass the House? Even if you just do something that's agreeable on tax rates, you have to put in estate tax, you have to put in an alternative minimum tax. There's the whole Medicare doc fix thing that has to be put in there. Every single thing has its own internal complications for voting and passage, on the smallest, most minimal measure. That's where I think we are. And no one is talking this weekend so you can't do anything unless you're talking.

ALLEN: And even the polls show the Republicans are unquestionably going to take more blame if we go over the cliff, and around here they're saying Merry Cliffmas. There is almost no reason for congress to come back this week. I'll look at sub-week for the reasons that Major pointed out. But this creates a real problem for the president. One, if we go over the cliff, the White House is truly concerned about what the unknown effects will be on the economy, on the stock market, from raters. But here's an even bigger thing, that the president had hoped to get some things done in January. In his first 100 days. He'd hoped to do now a firearms controls, certainly immigration. But now there's going to be all this overhang. We're going to have to fix whatever new cliff is set up. And whatever hopes there had been for big tax reform are derailed.

SCHIEFFER: When does the new congress -- when is it sworn in? I know for the president it's January 20. But they come in on the third, right?

GARRETT: Yes. They can theoretically start business. But for what Mike just said, Republicans now look at the polls and say it's probably not going to get much worse for us, but it could get worse for the president. So let's go off the cliff and let's him take -- let's see him take some of the blame because it will be apportioned differently after we go over because he in fact is the president.

SCHIEFFER: Do you really think they would allow this to happen?

ALLEN: Oh, absolutely. They expect it to happen.

GARRETT: I didn't a week ago. I thought a week ago, this was coming together and all the conservation were specific and moving in a direction. And then it stopped, and it hasn't had one ounce of life sense about Tuesday.

BRENNAN: And for Wall Street, the perception is almost more important than the reality that you're talking about here. I mean, some -- my old sources on the street say exactly that. I mean, when you look to be dysfunctional to the world, that's what's going to matter. And you're going to see that reflected in equities when we come back to an open market after the holiday.

SCHIEFFER: Well on that happy note, I have to thank you all, wish you the best of season.

ALLEN: Merry Christmas.

SCHIEFFER: We'll be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Well, that is it for today. but before we go, we want to say good-bye to an old friend, the very last issue of Newsweek magazine. This is the last cover. It will hit the stands tomorrow after close to 80 years in print publication. It will still be around, but it will be online. It was a big part of my life for a long time. Well, from all of us here at Face the Nation, we want to wish you happy holidays and Merry Christmas.