Face the Nation transcripts January 12, 2014: Rubio, Cummings, Wisniewski

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on January 12, 2014, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., N.J. state assemblyman John Wisniewski, Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, Rana Foroohar, John Harris, Michael Gerson, Gerald Seib, and CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on "Face the Nation" it's been a cold week, but politics turns things red hot.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: I am not a bully.

SCHIEFFER: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie got all tangled up in a scandal about who caused a traffic jam and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was telling tales about his old boss, the president. We'll get the take of Florida Senator Marco Rubio and key Democrat Elijah Cummings. The White House had little to say about Gates' new book...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Read any good books lately?

SCHIEFFER: But privately aides were stunned at the former defense chief's harsh treatment of the high command. Does Gates have any regrets about the book?

ROBERT GATES, FRM. DEFENSE SECRETARY: No, I don't. I think that it's an honest account.

SCHIEFFER: And we'll talk to the New Jersey legislator heading up the investigation into bridgegate. Plus, in our "Face the Nation" flashback, Captain Sully Sullenburger joins us as we remember the miracle on the Hudson River. 60 years of news because this is "Face the Nation."

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Well, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio joins us from Miami. And senator, I want to just start with the story that's been getting so much attention over these past few days. And that is this mess that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie finds himself in. What is your reaction to this? Do you think he's still a viable candidate if he decides he does want to seek the Republican presidential nomination?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, good morning, thank you for having me on and happy New Year to you and those that are watching. You know, I think it would be a mistake for me and others like me to comment on this. First of all, we don't know all the facts. I think this is story that is still developing and we should reserve judgment. Beyond that I'm just not -- I don't know that much about it other than what I have seen reported in the press. So, I really don't have much to add other than that. And I wouldn't delve in to the political speculation as well, that would be a mistake.

SCHIEFFER: Have you -- have you decided one way or the other whether you're going to explore running for president?

RUBIO: You know, interestingly enough in 2016 I'm up for re- election if I want to choose to stay in the Senate. So, I'll have to make a decision around this time next year about whether I'm interested in running for another office or re-election or becoming a private citizen.

SCHIEFFER: Well, senator, as you well know this month marks the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson declaring war on poverty. You made a big speech where you laid out some proposals on alleviating poverty this week. And I want to talk to you about the substance of those proposals. But first, I just want to ask you this, coming off an election where the Republican candidate lost and polls suggest many people say one of the reasons he did not do well is because he kind of wrote off lower income people, seemed indifferent to them. In light of that, why was it good politics to go to the Lyndon Johnson room in the U.S. Capitol and say that Lyndon Johnson's programs had been a failure, his programs to alleviate poverty.

RUBIO: Well, first of all let me say that I understand there was going to be a political analysis done of this issue, but for me I've been talking about this now better part of decade going back to my service in the Florida legislature. And the reason is I myself am but a generation removed from poverty and despair. And the reason why I live a better life is because my parents had the opportunity to come to a place where people like them had the opportunity to improve their lives. I think that is still true for the majority of Americans. But I think it would be wrong not to recognize that there are significant number of Americans that do not have equality of opportunity. That is not a political issue, that is something that threatens what makes us exceptional and different from the rest of the world. We need to address that. We need to address the fact that we have 40-some odd million people who feel trapped in poverty and do not feel like they have an equal opportunity to get ahead. And I don't view that as a partisan issue or an electoral one. I think it goes to the heart of it means to be America. As far as the war on poverty is concerned, its programs have utility they do help alleviate the consequences of poverty, but they don't help people to emerge from that poverty. And that's why I feel like the war on poverty has failed because it's incomplete. I think we have to take the next step, which is to help people trapped with inequality of opportunity to have the opportunity to build for themselves a better life. And that's what I hope we'll be able to accomplish.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you are not saying that program that Head Start were a failure because I took that from your speech that that is what you were saying, is that what you meant?

RUBIO: Well, that's not what my speech said. Actually, I think programs like Head Start are geared in the right direction in the sense that they're trying to get children educational opportunities as young as possible. I think where those programs can be completed and improved is that we create flexibility in them at the local level. So, I'm not saying we should dismantle the efforts, I'm saying that these efforts need to be reformed and I believe the best way to reform them is to turn the money and the influence over to the state and local level where I think you'll find the kinds of innovations that allow us to confront an issue that is complex, and quite frankly diverse. For example, rural poverty looks different than urban poverty. And there are different approaches to it.

SCHIEFFER: Well, that was one of the major proposals that you outlined, just turn these programs over to the states. But I tell you, the question I had when I heard you say that is I know some of the states when they had the opportunity opted out of federal programs like Medicaid, especially some where there were conservatives like yourself running the local government. What if these states opt out of these programs? Then what happens to these children and these people in poverty?

RUBIO: Well, here is the distinguishing factor. Under Obamacare, when you turn Medicaid over to the states what you're saying to them is the money will be available up front for the expansion for a few years, then the money will go away but you get stuck with the unfunded liability. I'm not saying we should do that. I'm actually saying that what we should do is take the existing federal funding that we use for some of these programs, and we're still working through which ones those should be, collapse them in to one central federal agency that would then transfer that money to fund innovative state programs that address the same issues. But it would be funded, it wouldn't be something where states are told you get the money for a few years then we'll back away. And it should be revenue neutral.

SCHIEFFER: Senator, do you think there is any way that congress or even the senate is going to come together and find a way to extend these unemployment benefits? I know you're going to vote on it next week. What do you think the outlook there is?

RUBIO: I do think there is an outcome that we can arrive at. And if you look at it, I there is a general consensus that these programs need to be extended, but they need to be paid for. And in addition to that, maybe not as part of this effort right away, but in the long term we need to figure out way to reform those programs so that we get more people back to work.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about another big story. Bob Gates, the former secretary of defense, had a book out this week. And a lot of people were surprised he had some pretty harsh things to say about Joe Biden, said he was wrong on boast everything. A lot of people have been around here for awhile like I have, were a little surprised to see not so much what he said but the fact that Gates who is always been the ideal -- the person of ultimate discretion, what did you think about him making these disclosures?

RUBIO: Yeah, I have two thoughts, Bob. The first is my preference would be that people would refrain from writing these sorts of things until the president is out of office. Because I it undermines the ability to conduct foreign policy. That being said, I don't think we can ignore what is in that book. And I think for many of us it confirms our worst fears. And that is that this is an administration full of people that either have the wrong convictions or in the case of Former Secretary Clinton, lack the courage of her convictions. You see that for example the motivations in Afghanistan was primarily political. And the idea that the president had that this is not his war. And you saw that reflected in the decision that he made at the same time that he announced the surge, he also announced an exit date and strategy, thereby emboldening Taliban to believe they can wait us out. And the result is now evident across the globe. Our allies see us as unreliable and our enemies feel emboldened. And I think that this is -- confirms our worst fears that this is an administration that lacks a strategic foreign policy and in fact largely driven by politics and tactics.

SCHIEFFER: What happens now in Iraq? It look like it may fall back in the hands of the rebels. Has this war going to turn out to be a tragic waste?

RUBIO: Well, first of all we need to understand that much of what has happened in Iraq lately has been the result of poor leadership within Iraq. I think contributing to that is the fact that U.S. does not have long-term status in Iraq. As a result, you know, air space used by Iranians and others to do all sorts of things. Ultimately whether it's Afghanistan or Iraq, future of those countries is in the hands of their own people. And the U.S. can't rescue them from themselves. But I do think we have a strategic interest in what happens there. And it poses a real challenge, because if you start adding it up now, Bob, you have an ungoverned space in Iraq, ungoverned spaces in Syria, potentially ungoverned spaces if Afghanistan begins to fall back, ungoverned spaces in Africa. This is all fertile territory for al Qaeda and other radical elements to set up training camps and plot attacks against he homeland and our interests around the world.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you, what should we do now? Is there anything we can do now?

RUBIO: Well, I think that I'd be open-minded to providing assistance to the Iraqi government in terms of training and equipment to allow them to deal with the challenges. I would not underestimate the impact that these rebels al Qaeda-linked forces in Iraq -- I'm sorry, in Syria are now having cross border in Iraq. I think's going to be a growing factor. Some have asked me this week if I would support another invasion of Iraq, of course not. I don't think that's a solution at this point. But I think we're going to be dealing with this for some time. But ultimately, the only way to solve this problem is for the Iraqi government to be able to solve it. They need the military and security resources in the short-term. But in the long-term, they need a stable political process, otherwise this is going to be an ongoing problem forever.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator, we want to thank you for sharing all this with us today. And when you do make that decision about whether you're going to run for the Republican nomination...

RUBIO: I'm sure you'll hear about it, yes.

SCHIEFFER: ... we hope you'll come here and tell us about us.

RUBIO: Thank you, Bob. Thanks for having me.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Rubio is not the only one to question former Secretary Gates's decision to speak out. His book hit Washington like a bombshell. So Rita Braver of "Sunday Morning" asked him last Thursday if he had any regrets about what he had written. You will notice that he's wearing a neck brace. He is recovering from a fractured vertebra.

ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think you have to look at the entirety of the book, and the fact that it deals with getting into wars, getting out of wars, and frankly it seemed to me that with the experience of -- and perspective of working for eight presidents and having been secretary for four-and-a-half years, I didn't think the waiting until 2017 to weigh in on these issues, and in a comprehensive and thoughtful way, made any sense.

RITA BRAVER, CBS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: I think what people are troubled by is that you criticized President Obama on actions, particularly on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, while it's still going on. And people are saying, look, that's just not right.

GATES: I make very explicit in the book that I agreed with all of the president's decisions on Afghanistan, the ones that he made in 2009 and subsequently. My one concern was that over the course of 2010 and early 2011 president began to have his own reservations about whether it would all work. And I think that is not an unfair thing to say.

BRAVER: In your book you say that one of your favorite adages is, "never miss a good chance to shut up." And I wonder if you think maybe you violated your own advice here. And do you regret anything that you've written?

GATES: No, I don't. I think that it's an honest account. Look, people gave me a lot of credit when I was in office of being blunt and candid about what I felt about things. I could hardly be any less in writing a book.

SCHIEFFER: So joining us now, Maryland Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings. Mr. Cummings, I want to talk to you about poverty, some of the other things that Marco Rubio talked about. But I just want to get your thoughts first on Secretary Gates, do you think he was out of line here?

CUMMINGS: Well, first of all, it's good to be with you, Bob. I think that -- first of all, I have a lot of respect for Secretary Gates. He served presidents of both parties and done an outstanding job. And I agree with him when he said that President Obama exercised great bravery with regard to bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. My one quibble is that when we've got troops in harm's way, Bob, it does concern me that these kind of comments are made. But overall I think -- but at the same time, he comments about the president being concerned about having second thoughts at times about putting our troops in harm's way. I know the president. I know he cares about these troops. And that's basically what the secretary said. So I'm glad he did that. I'm glad he -- maybe had second thoughts. And I cannot say that was the situation always with President Bush. And so I feel comfortable. I just wish he may have -- could have waited a little while.

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about this other big story that's getting so much attention now, and that is this situation that Chris Christie finds himself in, in New Jersey. You are on the House Transportation Committee, as well as the Government Oversight Committee. Do you think this debacle up there is worthy of a federal investigation, a congressional investigation?

CUMMINGS: Well, being on the Oversight Committee and doing a lot of investigations, I've always been reluctant to get ahead of a situation. In other words, I think what we need to do is see what comes out of -- we've got at least two investigations going on right now, Bob. You've got the New Jersey legislature, and then you've got the U.S. Attorney's Office, which is very serious matter. Now keep in mind what they're doing, Bob. They are basically investigating a former federal prosecutor, which is kind of -- that's serious. I think we need to see what comes out. I've got to tell you, though, when I look at Christie's style, and I don't know him, I can't -- it's hard to believe that he was blindsided by anything, because he doesn't come off that way. Again, I think we need to wait and see. There may be a point where we have to look in to it. But nobody is above the law. And so we'll look in to it if it comes to us.

SCHIEFFER: Talk to me a little about Marco Rubio's proposals on poverty. Basically what he is saying is let's just turn most of these programs over to the states. He also talks about doing away with the Earned Income Tax Credit and replacing it with just a federal subsidy to people who are in low wage brackets.

CUMMINGS: Yes, I listened to it, and I've got to tell you, I was surprised in a way. On the one hand, Bob, the poverty programs -- anti-poverty programs have taken -- brought a lot of people out of poverty. And I was pleased to hear him say that it has alleviated poverty for many folks. The research shows that the poverty rate would probably be double if these programs like Medicare had not been put in place. Keep in mind, Bob, Medicare, 50 years ago, 50 percent of our people didn't -- seniors didn't have health insurance. And now they do. Same thing with Social Security, 50 percent were begging almost for food, now one out of seven is in poverty. And that's a big difference between 50 percent. So I think that's -- those programs are important. His proposal bothers me because if you're going to take these programs -- is he going to say that about Medicare too and put it in a basket in the states? You see what the states have done. I mean, in his own state, we've got 800,000 people, Bob, who could have been placed in Medicaid under Affordable Care Act, and could be being treated right now. There are people watching this show right now that could be being treated for colon cancer or serious diseases that are not. And he hasn't done anything on that.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you, big vote is coming up in the Senate this week, and then I -- if the House takes it up, we'll find out. Do you see any way that the Congress is going to come together on extending these unemployment benefits?

CUMMINGS: Bob, I'm hoping so, because there are so many people who are depending on that. Keep in mind that -- one, that extending those benefits will cover 1.3 million people, plus another 2 million for 2014. Yes, I'm hoping that they will.

SCHIEFFER: What about increasing the minimum wage?

CUMMINGS: We've got to do it, because, again, and I'm hoping that Rubio will be one to lead people. He said we need to do more. And the thing that we need to do is help people survive and help them -- that one move from 7.25 now to 10.10 will bring 5 million people out of poverty. And he can make a major step there and maybe even go to the library and give -- Johnson Library, and make that announcement.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Congressman, we want to thank you for being with us this morning.

CUMMINGS: My pleasure.

SCHIEFFER: We'll be back in one minute with the head of that state investigation in the Fort Lee, New Jersey, traffic debacle.

SCHIEFFER: And we're back now with the man heading up the state of New Jersey's investigation in to so-called "Bridge-gate," Assemblyman John Wisniewski. Let me just start off by asking you this, sir. Governor Christie's point was he did not know. Do you think that's possible?

WISNIEWSKI: Good morning, Bob. And thanks for the opportunity to be here. I don't think it's credible for a governor to have his chief of staff, his communication director, his deputy chief of staff, all involved, his chief counsel all involved in email communications on the day this took place and the days after talking not only about the problems that were created in Fort Lee, but also talking about how to spin it to the press. I don't think so it's possible for all of those people to be involved and know and for the governor to absolutely have no communication. Remember, this was in the midst of his re-election campaign. Any governor running for re-election is going to want to know about problems that come up, if for no other reason, to know how to respond when asked a question. So these people got an e-mail from the executive director of the Port Authority saying that laws were broken. His chief counsel knew; his deputy chief of staff knew; his incoming chief of staff knew. It's just strange credibility that they didn't look at those documents and say, "We ought to let him know about it."

SCHIEFFER: So, at this point, though, and you're very early in your investigation, you don't have any proof that he did know. But, from what you're saying, if it proves that he did know, then what? Has a crime been committed here?

WISNIEWSKI: Well, whether he knew or not isn't the issue of the crime. I mean, clearly, in my opinion, when you use the George Washington Bridge for what the e-mail showed to be a political payback, that amounts to using public property for a private purpose or for a political purpose, and that's not legal. And so that constitutes a crime. Now, whether or not he was knowledgeable about it; whether he authorized it; whether he was involved in trying to spin it or cover it up, we don't have any direct communication, e-mails, documents, that directly go to him. But...

SCHIEFFER: But he -- if it turns out that this is, as you define it, a crime, could he be impeached, or what would be the penalty?

WISNIEWSKI: Well, I think we're a little early on that, Bob. I think you pointed out at the beginning we're at the early stages of this. But, clearly, if it becomes known that the governor was involved and he knew about it and he knew about the cover-up and he was approving the actions taken by his senior staff, that raises serious questions that the assembly ought to look at and that ought to be considered in light of what our responsibility is. The assembly has the ability to do articles of impeachment. We're way ahead of that, though. Right now, we know that there are senior staffers in the governor's office, Bridget Kelly, who sent the e-mail, his deputy chief of staff, on August 13, to close the lanes down. She spent the rest of the day with the governor at the fire scene at the Seaside boardwalk. And so, again, you know, this senior aide, who was with him that day, who sent the order, never once communicated with him? It's unbelievable.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Mr. Assemblyman, I want to thank you for being with us. And we'll be checking back with you to see what you found out.

WISNIEWSKI: Thank you, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Back with some personal thoughts in just a minute.

SCHIEFFER: When you've been around as long as I have, you have seen a scandal or two. my favorite was the time in 1974 that Wilbur Mills, then the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was stopped for driving with his lights off at 2:00 a.m. As police approached his car, a woman passenger, later identified as Fannie Fox, a stripteaser known as "the Argentine Firecracker," jumped out of the car and into the Washington Tidal Basin. Mills jumped in after her and lost his glasses. Remarkably, he was re-elected. But when he held a news conference after the election at a Boston burlesque house where the Firecracker was performing, it proved too much and he resigned. Well, for all its charm, I'm moving that story aside and topping my "You can't make it up" list with the New Jersey fiasco. In no way am I playing down the inconveniences forced on innocent taxpayers there. But I did like a letter to the editor of The Washington Post from a man named Per Kowalski (ph) who wrote, "In case anyone needs reminding, many of us come from countries where it would be pure bliss to have a political malfeasance on the level of creating traffic jams deemed newsworthy. Just think of the payback one nephew recently provided his uncle." Well, come to think of it, the North Koreans probably don't even have traffic bulletins. Back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Well, some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of you, we'll be right back with a lot more of "Face the Nation," including an interview with one of America's heroes, Captain "Sully" Sullenberger, who performed that miracle on the Hudson five years ago. Plus, a report from Baghdad and our panel. Stay with us.

SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION. Well, some of the worst news of the week came from Iraq. And there was more bad news today. CBS News correspondent, Elizabeth Palmer, joins us now from Baghdad -- Liz.

ELIZABETH PALMER, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Bob. Well, there have been two bombings already today in Baghdad, one in a public market and the other at a bus station. In the latter case, army recruits seem to have been the targets. And that's the second time this week that a group of army recruits have been targeted by bombers. The bombs were probably the work of a group that, when the U.S. was here, was known as al Qaeda in Iraq, but since, it's changed its name and actually grown in influence. Out in Anbar Province, about 50 miles west of here, it's hard to know exactly what's going on, although we do know there have been sporadic bouts of fighting for the last 10 days. So far, the Iraqi military hasn't moved in en masse. There's been no big offensive, just smaller units facing off against these armed extremists. Prime Minister Maliki hasn't ordered a big assault because he knows very well that the people of the area, armed tribesmen, Sunnis, really don't like his Shia-led government. And if the army were to move in, there's every chance that the local people would pick up arms and fight them off. So at the moment, Iraq has two serious security problems. One is armed extremists who the government doesn't seem to be able to stop and the second one, of course, is there's just a background of poisonous sectarian politics.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you so much, Liz, and be careful. At least 13 people now, at last count, have been killed in those bombings just today in Iraq. Well, joining us now to talk about that and all the other news, Rana Foroohar, the assistant managing editor of "Time Magazine," and he scored an exclusive with the new Fed chair, Janet Yellen, for this week's issue. Michael Gerson, who was the speechwriter for George W. Bush. He's now a "Washington Post" columnist. Gerald Seib, Washington bureau chief of "The Wall Street Journal." And we're also joined by our old friend, the editor-in-chief of Politico, John Harris. Gerry, let me just start with you. I mean this Iraq, the news just gets worse by the day. Is this whole thing about to fall in?

GERALD SEIB, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, it's worse than that, actually, because it's regional problem. What you're seeing, really, is the sectarian strife of the Syrian civil war now seep across the borders, back into Iraq, where it was under control at one point, and across the border into Lebanon. And you have Sunni Shiite civil wars breaking out in many different ways on many different levels. For the U.S., obviously, the conundrum here is what do you do? We just spent more than a decade in this country; Fallujah, a town that we liberated twice, seems to have fallen to al Qaeda- supported Sunni militias. What do you do about that? There's a piece I noted in "The Washington Post" today in which a retired general proposes that the U.S. provide air support to the Iraqi government to help turn this tide back around the other way. But I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that. And when you asked Senator Rubio about it, he said fairly quickly, we're not going back into Iraq.

SCHIEFFER: I can't imagine, can you, Michael, that we would in any way provide military support into Iraq now?

MICHAEL GERSON, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Not directly, but there are a lot of grades of things you can do to support proxies in the region, whether it's Afghanistan, in Syria or in Iraq. I thought that was the most effective part of Senator Rubio's critique, that, really, you know, in the Gates book, we're seeing now the real world results of an ambivalent American policy. You know, 100,000 people dead in Syria, six million people homeless. Al Qaeda safe havens all across the region. We've seen there, in the last decade, there are risks to engagement in the Middle East, but we're also seeing risks to disengagement and, you know, a filed policy in the Middle East. And I think that Republicans are increasingly going to try to hold the president accountable for that.

SCHIEFFER: You know, I do want to talk about this story. I'm not sure it's the big story of the week, but the one that's getting so much attention, and that is Chris Christie. But since you brought up the Gates book and his criticism, John, what do you make of this? I have said a lot of what Secretary Gates says in his criticism I, frankly, agree with But I was really surprised that he said it.

JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Well, there is a classic tension in Washington, I suppose, and everywhere else, between truth and loyalty. Those are two conflicting values. Obviously, Bob Gates made a decision to proceed on the...

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: It was -- I completely agree that it was a surprise. He's somebody who's a consummate establishment figure, but quietly in the establishment. Look, every president has to make judgments as he looks at his or maybe some day, her team, which side are these people on? There's kind of two stripes of people in Washington. There are loyalists who are loyalists to the end. And then there are people who are essentially loyal to the Washington establishment. They're loyal to Bob Woodward getting their story out, their label -- or the Bob Barnett, who is going to get their book deals. They're loyal to Bob Schieffer because they want the publicity of being on a show like this one. We learned which side Bob Gates is on. It's not on the side of the loyalists, it's one the side of, frankly, Bob Gates. I'm not criticizing what he did, but it did seem to me a move to advance his profile at the expense of the loyalty and the kind of sanctity of the policy process which he served.

SCHIEFFER: Rana, it really does kind of underline, though, that in Washington, for the president, I don't care who he is or what the ground rules are, there is nothing that, in the end, is off the record.

RANA FOROOHAR, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Oh...

SCHIEFFER: People talk to the president in confidence and then suddenly, it shows up in a book.

FOROOHAR: Absolutely. There is no such thing as off the record. All journalists know that.

(LAUGHTER)

SEIB: You know, I think one of the things that's been lost in the analysis in the Gates book, though, is that he was hard on President Obama in some ways, he was harder on other people. He was harder on Vice President Biden, obviously. Very hard on Congress, almost top to bottom. Hard on the White House staff. The president almost gets a pass from Bob Gates on some of these things, because, in the end, Bob Gates says I agreed with the decisions that the president ultimately made in Afghanistan. He, I think, was most upset because he perceived the administration as lacking faith in the uniformed military. And that's really what I think bothered Bob Gates.

HARRIS: When George Stephanopoulos wrote his memoir on the Clinton years, I asked Arthur Schlesinger, the historian -- the late historian -- what he thought about this. There was a very similar debate. And he said, look, I'm all in favor of this. Let the debate begin. Don't wait until administrations are over. Don't wait until memories are faded and people are dead. Let's have the debate. So, those are compelling views on both sides. We're going to learn about them more because of this.

SCHIEFFER: You were there for a lot of this. You were not there when Gates...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: -- was there working for Barack Obama, but you were there when he was working, Michael, for George Bush.

GERSON: Yes.

SCHIEFFER: Were you surprised by this?

GERSON: I was. I think this is a man who has completely lost patience with politics, politicians and Washington. And that was a lot of the context of this book. He was -- not a good picture of the Congress, not a good picture of a politicized, centralized national security structure at the White House. So that, I think, is the context here. But I thought it was particularly damaging profile, because Gates doesn't disagree with Obama on the substance of many of these decisions. He's not making an idealist argument or a realist argument, some kind of ideological critique. He's saying that the president's leadership was flawed, he was conducting missions he didn't believe in, he had a staff that was insular and not very effective. You know, I think that's a pretty effective critique. I don't think he has an ideological axe to grind. He's making a critique of the president's leadership.

SCHIEFFER: Rana, I want to ask you, you had a big scoop this week. You got an interview with Janet Yellen. What should we expect?

FOROOHAR: Well, she's optimistic. Perhaps the most important thing she said in terms of the economy during the interview, was that she and the other Fed governors are hopeful that growth, GDP growth this year, is going to be more like 3 percent rather than 2. Well, that would be a big shift, because that gets us more back toward the historical range that we've become used to. The question is, that the Fed is now going to have to do some tricky maneuvering. You know, they've been pumping a lot of money into the economy, currently $75 billion a month. They're going to have to pull that back with derailing the recovery. So she's really got her work out cut for her. And I think that she and other Fed governors would agree that in a politicized Washington, they're sort of left holding the bag. They're really the biggest institution that can act to make changes in the economy.

SCHIEFFER: What is she like?

FOROOHAR: She is -- she's a real truth seeker. You know, she's an academic. She's married to Nobel Prize winning economist, as well. Her son is an economist. There's a lot of very heavy dinner table conversations in that family. She's somebody who really took the lessons of the Great Depression, as did her predecessor, Ben Bernanke. She grew up, her father was a family doctor in Brooklyn, in a working class neighborhood. And she saw him taking in laborers who would pay $2 or not, depending on how things were going, to be seen. She really understands the human impact of unemployment. And that's something she kept come back to during our conversation. She's going to be really making sure that those employment numbers start to go down. That's going to be her primary focus. I think she's also going to be tougher in terms of bank reform than what we've seen in the past.

SCHIEFFER: OK, let's talk about it, a bridge too far...

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: -- the Chris Christie thing. I mean where does this go?

GERSON: You know, I don't know but -- where it goes exactly. But my own theory about why scandals are bad is that they violate one of two principles. The first is, if there's a whiff of hypocrisy and the second is if they seem to confirm some preexisting perception of a politician. Well, this one does a little bit of both. The preexisting perception of Chris Christie was that he's a little bit of a bully and this confirms that to voters. That's a problem. The second problem is on the hypocrisy front, you know, he had portrayed New Jersey as kind of a model of bipartisan cooperation. That didn't seem to be the case when it came to the bridge. So those are two things that give it legs, I think.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, one thing about it that was very Chris Christie-like, and that was he just came at it head-on.

HARRIS: We'll see where it goes. You know, arguing against Gerry's position a little bit that maybe this doesn't have the long- term resonance. One, I think it is the kind of dumb and dumber aspect of it. It is the most entertaining political scandal we've had with no sex angle that I can remember.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: You've got H.R. Haldeman meets Jim Carrey. And it's just -- it's vastly entertaining. The other thing I would -- I've noticed, there was a comment in The Washington Post today by Kathleen Parker, and I picked up the same thing. A lot of conservatives who Chris Christie really needs to court because frankly he's seen as a more moderate Republican, they don't seem as bothered by this. I've noticed it in my email and my conversations as well. They think there's hypocrisy on the part of the media that this is a lesser scandal than, say, the IRS investigations. And so like when the media goes in to full frenzy mode, actually Republicans and conservatives tend to rally around the target.

SCHIEFFER: You were going to say something, Michael.

GERSON: In an odd way, this is not bad timing for Christie. Presidential candidates often have scandals, DUI for Bush, or "bimbo eruptions" or other things. This is well before the election. If there's not anything more here, he has got time. But I would not minimize the fact that this is his closest team. If this team had been transposed to the White House, it would have had Nixonian implications. Putting these people in charge of the Department of Justice and the IRS could have been a serious mistake. Christie now has to prove that he can make adjustments in his inner circle that make that worthy of presidential run.

FOROOHAR: I agree with that. I think you can't minimize it. And I think also as people dig in to this, if it turns out that there really is a pattern, if there are other incidents of bullying, you know, there has been discussion about a Rutgers professor who didn't support certain policies who lost funding, you know, if there turns out to be a real pattern, I think that this will stick and be a lasting problem.

SCHIEFFER: But won't his main problem, be when he goes in to places like South Carolina, convincing them he's a conservative. I mean, in the end, won't that be what will be the deciding point as to whether gets the nomination or not?

SEIB: I think so. I mean, you know, he has not got the profile that necessarily fits the Republican Party of today in terms of primary politics. And when the base turns out they're not necessarily looking for a guy like Chris Christie there, stylistically or in terms of his substance.

HARRIS: His hope was that he could replace ideological purity, which he won't have, with character, i.e., toughness and personal rectitude, and that that would satisfy the concerns of those more conservative voters. That's more -- it's a little hard to...

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about Marco Rubio, because he obviously is somebody, you heard him say this morning he's going to make a decision next year as to whether he's going to do it or not. Obviously he is already checking around and seeing how the ground is there, looking for that groundswell. I think it is a little early to see a swell, but people are talking about him. What do you think?

SEIB: Well, I think that, to go to Mike's point, you know, he had a bad year in a sense in 2013 because he made a big push on immigration, the party kind of pushed back pretty hard. But, you know, in a way he has now moved to new issues, poverty is an interesting one. Lots of people in the party want to talk about the debate between Democrats, who want to talk about income equality, and Republicans, who say the issue is here upward mobility, and why isn't there upward mobility in society? Well, he has gotten out in front of that issue. He has got plenty of time to become the presidential contender that a lot of people thought he would be.

FOROOHAR: But you know what, if he wants to really use this idea of an "opportunity society" as a platform point, I think that the Republicans are going to have to sharpen those arguments, because the truth is that mobility in America has been decreasing and, particularly relative to Europe. But one of the reasons for that is that a number of European nations do have more government support around things like education, health care. You know, one of the top reasons, in fact, that a third of Americans cycle in and out of poverty is that they're having health care emergencies every year. So this is a very nuanced topic. And rather than just talk, you need to see really well-honed policies.

SCHIEFFER: The Senate, I guess, votes tomorrow on whether to extend unemployment benefits. Does anybody have a prediction on where that is going? Is that going to happen? The class, it will be noted...

FOROOHAR: I'm hoping it's going to happen...

(LAUGHTER)

FOROOHAR: Well, I hope it's...

SCHIEFFER: ... remained silent.

FOROOHAR: Well, I hope it's going to happen because, you know, we're still in the weakest recovery of the post-war period. There are a historically high number of people that have been out of the job for a long period of time. And that has not just an economic impact, but a social impact. The research shows that when people are out of a job, when the breadwinner can't work, children suffer, their test scores go down, divorce rates are higher. This is a real social problem. And I think that just saying that, oh, everyone can move up the ladder and kind of forwarding that mythology is not fixing it.

SCHIEFFER: And when you put this money back in -- this money, a lot of these unemployment benefits do go back in to the economy.

FOROOHAR: That's right. Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is an economy made up of 70 percent consumer spending. So if people don't have money in their pockets... SCHIEFFER: The minimum wage, do any of you think that we'll see the minimum wage increase this year?

SEIB: I don't.

SCHIEFFER: You don't?

SEIB: I think it's kind of hard to see bipartisan agreement on that.

HARRIS: I think we might because I think Republicans might make a pragmatic decision it's just not worth fighting about. They have done something similar in the past when this came up, only 3 percent of the workforce is covered. They might say, look, this is not the place to wage an ideological battle, even one that I think most conservatives do agree with that it's not job-producing, but in fact is -- they think is job- depressing.

GERSON: I think on this broader issue you're correct, but both sides are going to have to make concessions here because you're not going to achieve social mobility just with income transfer, just by expanding programs. And you are not going to achieve it by just, you know, economic growth and focusing on the family. You're going to have to address, you know, the influence of technology and globalization, and a lot of the -- and also family issues and some kind of conservative issues, and do it in comprehensive way. I'm glad Republicans have started talking about this. It's not just Rubio, it's also Cantor and Ryan and Mike Lee from Utah. Their policies are a little thin and tentative at this point. The question is whether they can rise to that. And they're going to need to to have a national appeal in 2016.

FOROOHAR: Well, one thing you'll be happy to know, Janet Yellen told me she is thinking a lot about globalization and technology and its job impact.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you all very much. And when we come back, we're going to talk to Sully Sullenberger.

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, I have a confession. I love stories with a happy ending. And it was five years ago this week that we had a great one when an airline captain right out of central casting, named Sully Sullenberger, performed what came to be called the "miracle on the Hudson River." That is our "FACE THE NATION Flashback."

SCHIEFFER (voice-over): On January 15th, 2009, U.S. Airways Flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia Airport en route to Charlotte, North Carolina. The jetliner was barely off the runway when disaster struck.

CHESLEY "SULLY" SULLENBERGER, PILOT, U.S. AIRWAYS FLIGHT 1549: This is Cactus 1539. Hit birds. We have lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back towards LaGuardia.

CONTROLLER: It's 1529. He -- bird strike. He lost all engines, he lost the thrust in the engines. He's returning immediately.

SCHIEFFER: But even before that message was finished, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger realized he couldn't get that far. In a calm voice, the 30-year veteran pilot told air traffic control that option two, Teterboro Airport, wouldn't work either.

CONTROLLER: Cactus 1529, turn right 2-8-0. You can land runway one at Teterboro.

SULLENBERGER: We can't do it.

CONTROLLER: OK. Which runway would you like at Teterboro?

SULLENBERGER: We're going to be in the Hudson.

CONTROLLER: I'm sorry, say again, Cactus?

SCHIEFFER: As New Yorkers down below watched in disbelief, Captain Sullenberger steered the plane over the George Washington Bridge and put the Airbus down in the icy waters of the Hudson river. All 155 passengers and crew members survived with only one serious injury reported. Sullenberger later recalled that just after the plane splashed down, he turned to his co-pilot and said: "Well, that wasn't as bad as I thought."

SCHIEFFER: And Sully Sullenberger is here with us this morning. Welcome to FACE THE NATION, Captain, we're glad to have you.

SULLENBERGER: Thank you, Bob, especially as fellow Texan, it's good to be here.

SCHIEFFER: Absolutely. I want to ask you this question. I've always wondered about it. If you had to do this again, if you were presented with this very same problem, do you think you could pull it off again?

SULLENBERGER: Well, of course, now I know what is possible.

(LAUGHTER)

SULLENBERGER: But that day, that was unanticipated. We never trained for this. And so we had to very quickly come up with a solution. But I'm convinced that we could probably do something similar.

SCHIEFFER: How is it -- how do you remain so calm? I mean you are, you know, I mean you are out of central casting as an airline captain. You have that calm voice. How is it -- is it just training? Is that how you do it?

SULLENBERGER: Well, besides the white hair, it really wasn't calm that day. Instead, it was discipline and intense focus, having the ability to compartmentalize and do our job well in spite of the sudden life-threatening stress.

SCHIEFFER: Did you think you would -- it would happen? Did you think it would be successful?

SULLENBERGER: I was confident that I could find a way to solve the problem. At the very beginning, I wasn't sure exactly what steps I would take, but I had good overall view of what needed to be done.

SCHIEFFER: These new planes, they're relying more and more on technology, using the satellites and all that stuff. We know about the thing out in San Francisco. Are pilots relying too much on the technology now?

SULLENBERGER: You know, this is one of the many new challenges that we're facing and the unintended consequences of increasing complexity and automation in our technology and our airplanes. We have to have pilots who still have the well learned fundamental flying skills and give them opportunities to have enough manual flying practice that they can remain sharp and have the deep understanding of the technology that they can know what it should be doing and what's not and when to intervene.

SCHIEFFER: You kind of won a personal victory when the FAA decided that these crews need more rest between flights. Tell me about that.

SULLENBERGER: Well, for many years, for five years now, I've been working hard to be an advocate for the traveling public, to keep aviation not only as safe as it is, but getting safer. And that very beginning was when I testified before the House Aviation Subcommittee just a month after our flight. And it continues. Most recently, I've met with Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Fox. I've met with FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. I've met with National Transportation Safety Board Deborah Hersman and talked about the great challenges we face and what we must do in the future to keep airline flying as safe as it can be.

SCHIEFFER: Is that the main problem for pilots, making sure they're rested?

SULLENBERGER: That's one of the great problems. After many decades of inaction, we finally have an improved fatigue rule. But we also are just now implementing pilot training rules, pilot experience rules, many rules that are coming into fruition. But we have to do more. We can't define safety solely as the absence of accidents. We have to look proactively at risks and mitigate them before they can lead to a bad outcome.

SCHIEFFER: How serious is this threat of birds hitting these planes?

SULLENBERGER: Well, what happened to us, unfortunately, could happen again tomorrow. It's a very rare event, to have large birds disable both engines on a two engine airplane, but it could happen. But there are a lot of people working on ways to prevent that, including high frequency radars that might be able to warn air traffic controllers and pilots to the presence of large groups of birds.

SCHIEFFER: What do you think is the number one problem now that pilots face in aviation?

SULLENBERGER: I think the number one problem is how to manage automation and how to remain current at their manual flying skills. We need enough practice to be sharp.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Captain, we thank you very much. And, again, thank you for what you did that day...

SULLENBERGER: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: -- up there in New York. Five years ago, it seems like just yesterday.

SULLENBERGER: Good to be with you, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you so much, Sully. We'll be back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Well, that's it for us today. We hope you'll tune in to "CBS THIS MORNING" tomorrow for the latest on all the news. We, of course, will be right here next Sunday on FACE THE NATION.