"Face the Nation" transcripts January 13, 2013: McCain, Manchin, McChrystal, Villaraigosa
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on January 13, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; plus a panel featuring CBS News Political Director John Dickerson, the Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran, and the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter.
SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, a capital divided. The president won the election but the partisan split remains over just about everything. The president made it official. We're speeding up our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By the end of next year, 2014, the transition will be complete. Afghans will have full responsibility for their security, and this war will come to a responsible end.
SCHIEFFER: Or will terrorists return when American forces leave? That was only one argument that rocked the capital. Republicans lined up to criticize the president's choices for defense, the CIA, and even the Treasury Department. Democrats said, where's the diversity? The two sides were no closer than ever on deficit reduction. All that was as a showdown on gun control looms after the Newtown shooting.
JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's no silver bullet, there's no -- as one of my friends said, no seatbelt you can put on to be sure that you will not be in this circumstance again.
SCHIEFFER: We'll talk about all of it with Senator John McCain, a senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee; Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of our troops in Afghanistan; West Virginia's Democratic senator, Joe Manchin; and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. We'll wrap it up with analysis from Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post; Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report; and our own John Dickerson. This is FACE THE NATION.
ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington, FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.
SCHIEFFER: And, good morning, again. And we're going to begin with the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain. Senator, thanks for being with us this morning. Well, the president made it pretty clear on Friday, we're leaving Afghanistan, and perhaps sooner than some expected. And every report you hear from behind the scenes is, we're going to keep very, very few people there. What do you make of this? What's your take on all of this?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, it's a one of a series of decisions the president has made basically overruling his military advisers. So whether it be in Iraq, which is now unraveling very significantly, or whether it be the decisions about a surge and how many and how soon they leave. There's a series of decisions, all of which the president and the vice president have overruled our military leaders and their advice and counsel, which is the president's right to do. But each time I believe that it has ensured the risk of failure. I think there's a very, very great risk now that with the president's announcement that they are basically going to be out, that the Afghans will not be able to effectively counter what still remains a significant Taliban and significantly discordant situation in both Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan. So I think you are probably going to see an unraveling gradually. I think you're going to be -- there's only one Iraq -- Afghan brigade that is capable of acting independently. These forces need air support, intelligence, all of the kinds of logistics and other support that is necessary to be effective. Fighting forces, they're not going to have that, and so I am much less than optimistic about this eventual outcome. But when you look at the Middle East, look at what has happened at Iraq, look at what has happened in Syria, the United States no longer leading from behind, waiting from behind. And then you look at the decisions concerning Afghanistan, you can understand why people throughout the region believe the United States is withdrawing, and that is not good for the region.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you this, Senator. I mean, we went to Afghanistan in the beginning because we wanted them to deny al Qaeda a safe haven, the terrorists who caused 9/11. But it's -- and I think to some extent we probably have done that. But as long as they have a safe haven in Pakistan, does it really matter? And I'm not saying to the Afghan people, but does it really matter to the security of the United States whether or not we're in Afghanistan?
MCCAIN: Well, again, the Pakistanis and others will act in accordance with what they think what will transpire in the region. Prior to 9/11 the United States contained terrorism in that part of the world. After 9/11 we actively went after and our strategy was to eliminate. And now with President Obama it's to disengage. They see us disengaging. Now, I would remind -- you're right, exactly why we went in there. Now the reason why al Qaeda was able to locate was because of the Taliban control. I don't think there's any doubt that the Taliban are a significant force remaining. And al Qaeda has proven to be remarkably capable of regenerating itself with new leadership quite often. So you see a region and with enormous difficulties, not to mention the threat of Iran being -- continuing on the path towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about the president's choices for his cabinet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a time when the opposing party has opposed every single person that the president nominates for his cabinet. It has usually been the rule, if the president's going to be in charge of the government, we have to give him the people he wants to run it. But Republicans seem to be against every single person that he has nominated this time around, at least so far.
MCCAIN: To varying degrees.
SCHIEFFER: Except for John Kerry, who, if the sources are right, was his second choice for that post because he did want Susan Rice, and you and Lindsey Graham, some, led the opposition to her. Can you be for Senator Hagel? I mean, in some ways -- I mean, he was the chairman of your -- co-chair of your campaign in 2000. He would seem to be your kind of guy: a veteran, a guy who has been shot at...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCAIN: He's a veteran, he's a friend. By the way, on this process, usually with the previous presidents, both Republican and Democrat, when they're considering nominations, they call in the other side and say -- you know, the key members on the other party and say, hey, I'm thinking about nominating Mr. X, what do you think about it? There has been none of that with this administration. But more importantly than that, I honor Chuck Hagel's service. He's a friend. My questions about him, and they will be raised in the nominations, are what is his view of America's role in the world? Whether he really believes that the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War. That clearly is not -- that's not correct. That's -- in fact, it's bizarre. Why would he oppose calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization? Same outfit that's on the ground now in Syria killing Syrians, same outfit that was exporting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq killing Americans. So these are legitimate questions that need to be asked. I honor his service. We are friends. But I have an obligation to the men and women who are now serving in uniform.
SCHIEFFER: At this point, would you vote against him?
MCCAIN: No. Nor would I vote for him. I think we've got -- this is why we have hearings. And, Bob, again, I almost -- I have a clear record of almost always giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, Republican or Democrat. But in this particular case, "advise and consent" is still a role that we play as senators.
SCHIEFFER: What about John Brennan, the nominee for the CIA? Your friend Lindsey Graham says he should not be confirmed until we know more about the attack in Libya. Are you going to... MCCAIN: I think Lindsey's right that we need to know. It has been months now and we still haven't gotten basic information. Like, what was the -- how were the talking points that were given Ambassador Rice to tell the American people? And on this program, why weren't there DoD assets for seven hours capable of -- I mean, there are so many questions that have not been answered, and Lindsey is right. In the case of Mr. Brennan, Mr. Brennan says he opposed torture, but he had also -- there are statements where he basically supported it. And finally, as you know, there was an investigation -- there is an investigation ongoing about the leaks after the take-out of Osama bin Laden. And Mr. Brennan was there in the White House and some of those leaks came out. We need to know the results of that investigation as well. So a lot of questions that need to be asked. I look forward to the hearings. I have always believed that a president deserves the right to choose his own team, but there are significant questions.
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you a couple questions about gun control that's obviously coming to a head here. Did you think an assault weapons ban can pass the Congress?
MCCAIN: No.
SCHIEFFER: Do you think it should.
MCCAIN: No.
SCHIEFFER: What do you see as the answer to this problem with guns?
MCCAIN: Well, my friend across -- here, Joe Manchin, has taken a lead on this issue. He comes from a state where people cherish their Second Amendment rights. And I respect a lot of his views on this. Let me just say that we obviously have a situation where crazy people, deranged individuals are having access to guns. Now exactly how do you do that? In Norway, a country with the most stringent gun laws, a guy was able to slaughter a huge number of people there in Norway. So I think we need to look at it in its entirety. I think all of us should have this conversation. I applaud the conversation. We need to have it stopped, but to somehow believe that guns away from people is the answer. I don't think history shows that that's the right way to do it.
SCHIEFFER: All right, John McCain...
MCCAIN: Thanks for having me.
SCHIEFFER: And we're going to get another side of all this now from West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Senator thank you for being here. And I want to go back to the top to what John McCain was talking about. He doesn't seem too enthusiastic about reducing the size of our troop forces in Afghanistan. How do you come down.
MANCHIN: Well, I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain, John my friend, and -- a true war hero in the Senate we all look up to. With that, we respectfully have a difference of opinion on this, and I mean respectfully. In West Virginia, we basically are a hockey state and we felt that when our country was attacked on 9/11 we had every right and responsibility to go get the people that did damage that killed 3,000 Americans. We've virtually done that. We've killed Osama bin Laden. We've crippled al Qaeda. Now I guess are we going to be there forever? Is our mission now to occupy that country in some way, shape or form forever? I don't believe so. I believe that's wrong. I believe we need to come back home and rebuild America. I think we have to be ever vigilant. And basically with the war on terror, have our operational forces, our strategic forces who are able to go anywhere and be able to strike at any time before someone comes to America or does harm to Americans. I believe in that. But a war of occupation where we occupy these countries is not one that we signed up for. It was not the mission given to us.
SCHIEFFER: So you are favoring getting out of there.
MANCHIN: The quicker the better.
SCHIEFFER: The quicker the better.
MANCHIN: The quicker the better.
SCHIEFFER: Should we leave a residual force there of some kind?
MANCHIN: Bob I would think the basic -- I've been there twice now on different -- as a governor and as a U.S. senator, and I believe we have some strategic, especially the Bagram Air Force Base. That's a tremendous opportunity, strategic point for us to launch from and protect our troops for our special forces to operate out of. And I would defer to the -- to the experts and professionals on that. But I can see that we're going to have this war on terror, not just from our generation, but from our children's and grandchildren's. So we have to be able to strike at terror before it strikes us.
SCHIEFFER: I don't think there's any question that we have denied al Qaeda a save haven in Afghanistan, but they now have a safe haven in Pakistan. What do we do about Pakistan, senator?
MANCHIN: I approve of the drone strikes there. I'm one who said that basically we should use all the technology we have to protect America and Americans without putting them in harm's way. That's been very effective. We've been able to strike and take out al Qaeda leadership, Taliban leadership, those who wish to do us harm and do it with the least amount of harm to our citizens and our men and women in uniform. I believe we should be able to use the technology and our special forces in the most lethal way to protect our country.
SCHIEFFER: Do you have any concerns about Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense?
MANCHIN: I haven't had the privilege of serving with Chuck. I don't know Chuck Hagel. I know his reputation. And I've spoken to him once on the phone. He's coming in next week to speak with me. I look forward to that. I have some questions I want to ask and sit down and get his view points on Israel, our greatest ally. I want to see where his Iraq -- why he chose to oppose the Iraq war which I think was a wise choice now that we know all the conditions. Also Iran. I believe the sanctions in Iran are working and can even work further without going in and having a land war there. And Afghanistan. I believe that he believes as I do that there's not going to be any changes that we're going to significantly make there no matter how long we are. So, it's going to be a very interesting conversation I look forward to having. But I truly believe -- I was a former executive being a governor and I always appreciated when the senate gave me the, gave me the respect of basically putting my staff together. And I will give every consideration to our president to do the same. But there are still some serious questions we need to ask.
SCHIEFFER: What about gun control? You know, you had one of the most memorable ads during your campaign for the senate, because you actually fired a rifle at one point during that. You're a proud member of the NRA, but you're now saying after the shooting in Connecticut we need to do some stuff.
MANCHIN: First of my life did I ever think that I would ever see children, let's say babies in a kindergarten, get slaughtered. That has changed the dialogue and it should change it. How have we gotten to a culture of mass violence, whether if you're just going to say it's all about guns and we need gun changes and bans, then you're wrong. If you think it's all about ...
SCHIEFFER: What do you need.
MANCHIN: You need a comprehensive approach. John and I are basically going to be spearheading it and leading as far as cosponsoring a bill which is basically commission on mass violence, which I'm hoping the vice president would incorporate in his recommendations. You've got to have people with the expertise, people that understand mental illness. How do people get their hands on this weapon that has this disease.
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this, senator. Could you envision a ban on assault weapons and some of these largest magazines, if that's part of it.
MANCHIN: Bob, if they just put that up by...
SCHIEFFER: If that's part of it, it's something the conversation -- I will give you my answer this way. I want to talk to my friends and my members, NRA members. I don't have an assault weapon. I shot assault weapons. I have hunted with semiautomatics. I don't own -- I own my guns, my bolt action guns and my shotguns and do all the things I do with hunting with my family. I want to know and hear from them why do you have a magazine or need a larger clip magazine? You can't just push the NRA away and law abiding gun owners away. They have to be at the table and you need to find out what their preference of protecting that. The other thing is the registration. These are discussions we have to have. We've got an atmosphere in Washington, Bob, that basically is guilt through conversation anymore. That if I sit down and say I'm willing to talk about this. I want to know more about mental illness, about registration, about clips. I want to know people that are protecting those, are defending those positions. How about the first amendment? And what I would say to all of my friends in -- that are NRA and gun owners that there's no way that they're going to take your second amendment rights away. That won't happen. And the first amendment won't be infringed upon, but we have to look at how do we cure this violence, the culture of mass violence.
SCHIEFFER: Senator, it's a pleasure to have you. Hopefully we'll see you again.
MANCHIN: Good to be here, Bob. Thank you.
SCHIEFFER: And we'll be back in a moment to talk to General Stanley McChrystal.
SCHIEFFER: And we welcome now General Stanley McChrystal who commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan until 2010. He is here. He has a new memoir out "My Share of the Task" which was released last week. And we'll talk about the book, general, but I'm going to just ask you, I want to get your take on the president's announcement that it looks like we're going to be leaving Afghanistan maybe faster than we thought and all the talk is he's going to leave a very small residual force there. What's your take on that?
MCCHRYSTAL: Well Bob when I got there in 2002, the country was physically devastated and morally and mentally traumatized. The society was in tatters. Let's been an awful lot of blowing but Afghanistan -- progress but Afghanistan is hard. It's always hard. If you study their history it's never anything but complex and difficult. But there are now females in school, there are opportunities, there are places that are secure that were not secure just a few years ago. The Afghan forces are improving but they have a long, long way to go. My -- my question on the future would be what do we want in the region? This is not just a case of Al Qaida was in Afghanistan and now they largely are not. I think it's a question of the future of the region, the future of the Afghan people but also the stability in the region. And I think that what we want to do, what our strategy is, ought to be what we're talking about now, rather than just the numbers of forces there.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you the question I asked Senator McCain, and that is, I would agree with you, and I think most observers would, that Al Qaida no longer has the safe haven in Afghanistan. But as long as they have a safe haven in Pakistan, does it really make any difference, from the standpoint of just U.S. security, not the people of Afghanistan, but from the standpoint of U.S. security, does it make any difference now what happens in Afghanistan?
MCCHRYSTAL: I personally believe that the region matters, and Afghanistan cannot be viewed in isolation from Pakistan or even Iran or the other neighboring countries. So if, for example, there were an ungoverned area in Afghanistan or if it was a Taliban state, I think Pakistan's very stability, now with the Pakistani insurgency as strong as it is, would really be threatened, and a nuclear-armed Pakistan in a threatened position would be a real challenge.
SCHIEFFER: Well, what do we do about Pakistan?
MCCHRYSTAL: I think that it's our long-term strategy we have to be talking about. What makes Pakistan act the way they do? Their relationship with India, the issues over places like Kashmir. What motivates their thinking? What -- what is the direction of Pakistani actions? Part of that is impacted by what we do in the future in Afghanistan. I believe that a stable Afghanistan is important to Pakistan. I think it's important to the region.
SCHIEFFER: Is a stable Afghanistan possible if you have, say, 2,500 American troops here? I mean, no one believes, if the people I talked to are correct, that Afghanistan is ready to stand on its own and defend itself now. Can it be stable without an enormous amount of U.S. help?
MCCHRYSTAL: Well, there ought to be a federal law passed that says retired members can't talk about specific numbers of troops on the ground because active generals -- they're there. They know what they're doing. So I think that -- I believe Afghanistan can be stable. I think they must take responsibility for their security, the vast lion's share. But I think the strategic partnership that President Obama offered to President Karzai is critical -- not just physically. It's not how many troops and how much money; it's the idea in the minds of Afghans that they actually have a reliable partner.
SCHIEFFER: Well, but what is it that needs to happen there? I mean, and I'm just talking about what seems possible to you. Is it possible for them to be stable if we draw down the troops to, say, 2,500?
MCCHRYSTAL: Again, I -- I don't know numbers. I do know that, in the minds of Afghans, if they view America as a reliable friend, an ally -- and everybody needs friends and allies. If they believe that we are that kind of shoulder-to-shoulder partner into the future, that it will give them greater confidence to do what they must do, which is take responsibility.
SCHIEFFER: But, right now, General, they're -- they're shooting us, I mean, from time to time. They shoot the people that are trying to train them. How do -- how do we handle that?
MCCHRYSTAL: Well, that's a very difficult phenomenon, green on blue. But I think it shouldn't be taken out of context. In the larger scheme, it's not the major activity. And I don't think that it should be what drives our decision. Our geostrategic interests ought to be what drives our decision.
SCHIEFFER: General, we're going to ask you to come back on "Page Two," and I want to talk to you about some of the things that you talk about in your book, what you think the impact of all this has been on our U.S. forces and a lot of other things. We'll do that on "Page Two." I'll be back in a minute with some final thoughts.
SCHIEFFER: Barack Obama's second term begins one week from today. Second inaugurals are always like second weddings. The first time brings excitement, great expectations, in fairy tale settings. The second time, reality sets in. All involved have learned nothing is quite as easy as once thought. Even so, I can't remember approaching inaugural week feeling there was less excitement in the air. The fight over the fiscal cliff was so distasteful and ridiculous, it left me wondering not so much about the possibilities of the next four years but whether our political system is so broken and our politicians so inept that they, we actually, are no longer capable of solving our problems. The nation remains deeply divided. The president won re-election but no mandate, nor did Congress. Thanks to the power of incumbents to raise money and gerrymandered districts, most of the old crowd has returned, not to great huzzahs but to a Gallup poll that gives them a 14 percent approval rating, a historic low. At one point during the Iraq war, George Bush's people unfurled a banner saying "Mission Accomplished," a declaration that proved famously premature. Well, I suppose we have learned since then not to jump to conclusions, and I guess that's progress. But being a romantic come inaugural day, I'm sure I'll start feeling the old excitement again. Yet, with what I've seen lately, I have to say, in all honesty, not just yet. Some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of you, we'll be right back with more from General McChrystal and a lot more. Stay with us.
SCHIEFFER: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We're here, and we want to talk some more with General Stanley McChrystal. General, when you wrote your book, I mean, it's no secret. Your people said some very inappropriate things about the president, commander in chief. You were called to Washington, you offered your resignation and the president took it. I think a lot of people thought in your book it might be a get-even book, that you would give your side of the story. You really didn't say much bit at all. You said, look, these people were my responsibility. I'm the leader. And I offered my resignation the and the president took it. Is there any more to the story than that? Were you angry? Where are you disappointed? How did you feel at that point?
MCCHRYSTAL: Well, I was -- we had had an embed and we had had a lot of those. And the story from the embed from Rolling Stone produced was sure to cause a controversy. I don't think the story was particularly accurate in the way it represented my team. But you know, I was in command and the simple elegance of command is you assume responsibility. You don't try to push it to someone else. You don't cry about it. And when I decided to write the book, I have a lot of feelings about what happened, but the most is that responsibility's key. And there's no point in finger pointing. I'm not sure Washington needs another book like that. I was honing that hoping that this book would be one that will be read 20 years from now at West Point. And that's the way I tried to write the book and the way I try to live my life.
SCHIEFFER: And no regrets. Are you angry?
MCCHRYSTAL: I have regrets that some of the things that I was responsible for I didn't finish. I didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. I let down a lot of people that worked for me, 150,000 troops worked for me. The Afghan people, many of them believed deeply in me. I was worried that my wife of then 33 years, now 35 years that I had let her down. But they've been remarkably supportive. And I don't have any regrets in my life. I was extraordinarily lucky to be part of the things I experienced.
SCHIEFFER: Now you're back in Washington. You've had a chance to see how Washington works. It's not altogether an inspirational time here I would think. We see the political system virtually broken. I was just talking about it. Let me ask you about Chuck Hagel. Do you have any problem with Chuck Hagel?
MCCHRYSTAL: I've only met him once. And I certainly have no problem with him. He certainly has a great record not just as a soldier but as a senator.
SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about Afghanistan, And this is the longest war and the impact that this war has had on our military. When we're talking about the surge and sending more troops, I was at a panel and I heard Colin Powell say look, first correction here, we're not sending more troops we're sending the same troops. And we -- it's almost as if we have run the military into the ground. These people are exhausted. We see suicide's up. We see all of these horrendous things. Are you worried about that?
MCCHRYSTAL: There are two things that concern me. The first is in the force itself. About a year and-a-half ago, a ranger platoon sergeant, and I run it for the ranger was killed. And he was on his 14th tour to combat. Now there are tours three or four months long but cumulatively 14 of those is a lot. He had just entered the rangers at 2001, so his entire career his service had been in that environment. He left a wife and I think two children. He is representative of the force. And if you think not just to the service member, but of the wife. The spouse or a husband who has ever back in the children, repetitive years gone, repetitive stresses and strains. They're an extraordinarily professional force. To my knowledge this is the first time we fought a lengthy war with a completely professional force. And we don't really know the long term impact. It's held together well but there are a lot of disturbing numbers like suicides which worries me a lot.
SCHIEFFER: Well, it seems to me that we are asking a military to do more than it is designed to do. And people are talking about reducing the size of the military, but it seems to me if we're going to ask the same of the military that we're asking now, we actually need a larger military. And I don't think that's going to happen. MCCHRYSTAL: Well, I would take it in a slightly different direction. We are asking the same military but I'm not sure it's a military that the American people know. Most of us see a soldier or sailor, airman, marine at the airport we say thank you for your service or we buy them a meal or something. But I did some statistics not too long ago and in the Civil War something like one out of every 62 Americans was wounded, not just served. So you not only knew veterans, you knew someone in your town, your family or whatever who was wounded. Now that's one out of every 7,293 Americans.
SCHIEFFER: About 1 percent isn't it? It's less than 1 percent. So, American soldiers are largely anonymous to Americans. They are this sort of figure, iconic figure. They admire them, particularly people like special operators, but they don't know them. And it worries me that they become a caricature. I think we need to find a way for when America decides to commit itself in a way that America commits understands.
SCHIEFFER: Would you favor a draft?
MCCHRYSTAL: I personally believe that national service is important for the nation. That's all young people serve a term of national service. Certainly not all military but I believe those things have two effect. One those things which bind people to their nation are important. And another thing is we're also a nation that doesn't get to know each other well. Someone from one part of an inner city never meets someone from an upper class middle -- upper class neighborhood. We need some things that pull people together in shared experiences. We need to be ten years after the fact when they're meeting somewhere and the question is where did you serve begins the connection that allows them to move on, because we are getting too fragmented in my view.
SCHIEFFER: What do you think is the greatest threat to our national security at this point?
MCCHRYSTAL: In the near term, it's clearly our economic challenges. Our inability to make tough decisions to move our economy forward, that worries me in the near term. In the long term it's our education because that is the future.
SCHIEFFER: Not terrorism, education.
MCCHRYSTAL: We can handle terrorism. We can handle a nuclear- armed Iran. We can't handle a future where young Americans are not educated enough to take our country forward.
SCHIEFFER: General, I want to be one of many to thank you for your service. Thanks for being with us today. We'll be back in one minute with the mayor of Los Angeles.
SCHIEFFER: Joining us now the mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for being here. You are going to make a big speech here in Washington tomorrow on immigration, the "New York Times" reports this morning. The White House is planning a big push on immigration. Give us an out line of what you're thinking about here.
VILLARAIGOSA: The time is now. We can't wait another political season to pass comprehensive immigration reform. This isn't just a moral, it's an economic imperative. If we bring these people, 11 million people from out of the dark and into the light, it's about a $1.5 trillion impact to the U.S. economy. The dreamers alone, a $329 billion impact. We can't do this piecemeal and we can't have second class citizenship. This has to be a pathway to full citizenship.
SCHIEFFER: What do you want to see happen? And let me also ask you, do you have any -- did you get an advance peak at what the president's going to present here?
VILLARAIGOSA: I did get to talk to them a bit, but I'll let him make that presentation. I talked to the White House a bit.
SCHIEFFER: What do you want to see happen?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, what I just outlined.
SCHIEFFER: Yeah, but I mean, what are the most important things, a path the citizenship, but how do you get that?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, you get it, obviously you have to have that pathway that allows folks to become full citizens, the -- make sure that you get at the end of the line, that you pay your taxes, that you're not, that you have a background check but in the end we've got to make sure that these people have a pathway to full citizenship. I think that's very, very important. You can't do this in a piecemeal way and importantly I think it's got to be bipartisan. It won't be pass muster if it's not. And I'm heartened to see that Senator McCain and others I think there are about eight in the senate that have been working together and talking about comprehensive immigration reform, not just a piecemeal approach.
SCHIEFFER: Who are the first people that ought of get citizenship? You're talking about the kids or who?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, I think we need to make sure that 11 million people, after the background check, after they get at the end of the line -- obviously the people who become citizens first are the people who have been in line, after they get out of the line, after they have done everything to make sure that they're -- you know, they've had a full background check, paid their back taxes. We've got to do this in a way that gives all of these people an opportunity to be full citizens of the United States of America.
SCHIEFFER: You are also one of the mayors who is trying to do something about guns. What do you want to see in that field? The vice president is heading up this task force. You just heard John McCain say he's still not for a ban on assault weapons. There is still going to be a lot of controversy on this. What needs to happen here and how do we get that?
VILLARAIGOSA: You know, after Newtown, the massacre of 22 children in an elementary school, we can find a middle ground here. The fact of the matter is that Vice President Biden sat with all of the constituents, including the NRA. I do believe that we need an assault weapons ban. In California, I was one of the authors of the assault weapons ban. It's important. I think we need to ban high-capacity magazines. We need universal background checks. Right now 40 percent of all the sales of guns and assault weapons are done privately. And you don't need a background check for that. We need to repeal the Tiahrt amendments which say that you have to throw away a background check after 24 hours and really limits the ability of the federal, state, and local governments to work together to get guns out of the hands of criminals and people that shouldn't have them, the mentally ill. We can do a lot more to beef up and fortify our mental health registries to make sure we know who is on those lists. We've got to do a lot more to provide mental health services. We've got to address the culture of violence in this country. You see parents really need to have a conversation with their kids, particularly young kids, video games and the movies that they see. We can have this balanced, bipartisan discussion without the kind of nay-saying that we've had in the past. The time is now.
SCHIEFFER: What about this idea of police in schools? I mean, I can see in some schools where that might be helpful, maybe even necessary. I can't imagine in every school that that would be the answer. What is your feeling with that?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, in L.A., we are patrolling every school. We have officers coming to every school in our city.
SCHIEFFER: Every day?
VILLARAIGOSA: Every day. Not all day, but at various parts of the day while school is open, they are visiting the campuses to make sure things are going well. But like you, that's not the answer. It's a comprehensive answer. And I just mentioned some of the points of that balanced approach. I don't agree with the NRA that we should be arming our teachers. But we should have discussions in our classrooms about bullying and violence and resolving conflict without violence. And we've got to do a lot more around mental health, as I mentioned, but we do need gun -- sensible gun safety laws in the United States of America. You know, the Republicans in the House and Senate have blocked the approval of director of the ATF for the last seven or eight years. We've got to beef up and really move away from the kinds of things we've done in the past.
SCHIEFFER: While you're here, are you going to talk to anybody at the White House about maybe a little more diversity in some of these cabinets?
VILLARAIGOSA: Well, I think when it's all said and done you're going to see that this president is absolutely committed to diversity, to having women and people of color in his cabinet. I can tell you this is the man who passed and spearheaded the support, and signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. He's committed to that. And when it's all said and done, that's what you'll see.
SCHIEFFER: Any chance we might see more of you around here?
VILLARAIGOSA: There's the chance.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
VILLARAIGOSA: Just kidding.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you.
VILLARAIGOSA: On your show, anyway.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Well, we'll try to kick this around with a little analysis on our "Roundtable." That's next. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
SCHIEFFER: Finally, a lot of questions. Now we get all the answers from our reporters "Roundtable": Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the national editor of The Washington Post, author of "Little America: The War within the War for Afghanistan"; plus the national editor of the Cook Political Report, Amy Walter; and our own John Dickerson, back after some post-campaign vacation time. Well, Rajiv, you heard John McCain, you heard Joe Manchin, you heard Stanley McChrystal, kind of three different points of view on Afghanistan. I think one thing that seems certain here, we're getting ready to leave Afghanistan. I mean, that's the bottom line.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN, NATIONAL EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON POST: We most certainly are. And there's going to be a very substantial reduction in forces this year. The president made that all but clear in his remarks with the president, Karzai last week. And I think we're going to have a very small follow-on force there in 2015 and beyond. But, Bob, you know, Washington is so obsessed with this number. Is it going to be 2,500? Is it going to 5,000? Is it going to be what the military wants, which I hear from my sources, is around 12,000? You know, ultimately, the difference between 3,000 and 6,000 isn't going to be all that great. The more important issue is actually one of money, which is something this town likes to debate a lot about. You know, as we reduce forces, Afghanistan is still going to need $4 billion a year to sustain its army and its police force. You know, think back to the days when the Soviets withdrew. You know, the communist-backed government in Kabul didn't fall overnight, Bob. It didn't even fall a year later. It fell two years later when the Soviet Union collapsed and could no longer pay bills in Kabul.
SCHIEFFER: Well, left me just ask you the question I ask all of them here, if the Taliban or if al Qaeda, what's left of it, if they have a safe haven in Pakistan, what difference does it make in -- just for U.S. security, what happens in Afghanistan?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, that safe haven potentially could lead to future attacks around the world. Now we can control those safe havens, I believe, with a very modest presence of special operations forces and the intelligence agency, drones in the sky. You don't need thousands and thousands there. But what Afghanistan does need is money to support its army, and with fewer troops there. Is there going to be political support in this country to write those checks? And that's a big question mark.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's shift to matters back here at home. Money, we've got the debt ceiling argument coming up here. The government is going to run out of money at the end of February if something isn't done. What do you think, Amy, are we going to see more of the same what we saw during this fiscal cliff fiasco...
AMY WALTER, NATIONAL EDITOR, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Sure seems that way.
SCHIEFFER: ... or is there something better on the horizon?
WALTER: Wouldn't that be great if I could say yes. Bob? But I can't say yes. I mean, I think remember when the election ended and it looked like this was going to be an era of compromise. John Boehner came out and said, of course we want to work with the president. The president said, of course we want to work with Republicans. That was shattered within about 20 minutes after both men said that. And so I don't think we're looking at compromise anymore, it's really about who can get their way by trying to intimidate the other side more. So Democrats, not the president, but other Democrats, saying, hey, here's a way to not compromise, we're just going to print a coin, a trillion dollar coin, and that's going to cover it. Republicans now saying, including many who we think of as sort of establishment Republicans, saying, how about a partial shutdown of the government to get what we want? So we're not looking at all about compromise. It now seems like one side is just going to say if we try to scare you enough, you'll bend to our will.
DICKERSON: And in keeping with that, we had the fiscal cliff, we're at the end of it. Now we have three mini little fights. We have a fight over the debt celling, we have a fight over the sequester, there was across the board cuts. And then we have a fight on funding the government coming in March. So we now have three big fights. And the behavior in the White House is really interesting on the debt ceiling. Usually in these fights they say we are not going to negotiate with ourself in public. But that suggests they will negotiate with somebody in private. Now they're saying on the debt ceiling we're not even going to pick up the phone when the Republicans call. And that's why when they said we're not going to mint a trillion dollar coin. We're not going to use the 14th amendment to have the president do something to avert this real serious problem with the debt ceiling. They don't agree with either of those two approaches because those two approaches have a role for the president and they say the president has no role here. It's all congress dealing with bills they've already -- I mean spending they've already done. That's a difference in posture.
SCHIEFFER: Do you think that the big fight is going to be over whether to raise the debt ceiling or will it be over the so-called sequester, and that is stave off these horrendous, these gargantuan cuts in defense and social programs?
DICKERSON: I think probably the sequester -- although, there's a big fight among Republicans about this because the debt ceiling is more powerful because the pain if we blow the debt ceiling is real. And so the idea for some Republicans is because the pain is so big it'll get the White House to talk.
SCHIEFFER: What would be the impact on the Defense Department, Rajiv, if the cuts goes into effect.
SETHI: It takes us back to levels of defense spending that we had back in 2006 and '07, really. You know, it's far more than we're spending in 2001. Yes, there will be jobs furloughed, there will be weapons system but we won't be able to procure, but ultimately the Defense Department can continue doing what it does as its core mission. And I see if Chuck Hagel is confirmed as secretary of defense. He's going to be pushing for a new series of cuts I believe that will take us down this sort of path. He feels the Defense Department is too bloated and the fiscal health and ultimately the path to fiscal health in this country has to involve further reductions to our military. We saw peace dividends after the Cold War. If we're pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, we're out of Iraq. We've got new approaches to contain al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations with drones, special forces activity, then perhaps it's time to start looking at right sizing the defense budget.
SCHIEFFER: Do you think Chuck Hagel is going to be confirmed? Obviously there's going to be a real fight here.
SETHI: I think it's going to be a nasty fight. I think a lot of mud will be slung by his former colleagues in the senate. In fact, in many non-former colleagues. He's facing a Senate where many of those voting for him were not people he served with, newcomers to that body. But I think ultimately he will get the necessary Democratic support and that from a handful of Republicans to get confirmed.
WALTER: Agreed. Yeah, and it sounds even -- folks that I'm talking to suggest that it actually could be a bigger number than we're even talking about right now, that the momentum is behind him. I think you saw with Senator McCain while he sad some critical things to say about him, he was not certainly putting his fist on the table saying this will not happen under my watch. He said I'm not not going to confirm him.
SCHIEFFER: John, can you recall a time every single time someone is nominated there's been this immediate opposition?
DICKERSON: Yeah, well, that's the new world we live in now although as you pointed out Kerry, Senator Kerry is likely to have a pretty easy sledding. It will be interesting to see how much they beat up on Kerry for his opposition to the Iraq surge and how much they beat up on Hagel who had essentially the same position about the Iraq surge. How much of it really is -- these are -- there are a lot of fights that Republicans have been itching to have about Iraq, about Iran, about Israel, that -- they've been looking for an opportunity to have. They tried to have it over Benghazi with Susan Rice. They kind of basically did have it there. But there are a lot of -- there's a lot of argumentation that needs to be aired. And it'll probably all happen in the Hagel nomination.
SCHIEFFER: When John Kerry ran for president there didn't seem to be overwhelming support from Republicans about his record. Here's a guy who was a Vietnam vet and all of that but there seemed to be a different take.
WALTER: But for Hagel it's that he as a Republican going against Republican orthodoxy. It would be in the same -- it's almost as if he switched parties and they're now asking Republicans to go and support him. And also when you think about Vietnam and service, yes, we have many new people in the Senate who didn't serve with Hagel, but you know, less than half of the people currently in the United States Senate were even old enough, or they are female, to be drafted in Vietnam. So this is a very new generation. They don't look at that service in Vietnam in the same way that maybe a different generation would.
DICKERSON: I was interested, the president in selling Hagel used a little of the ghosts of Vietnam and basically saying here's a representative of the enlisted man and arguing that anybody who is going to knock him better have served themselves to have standing to even be in the conversation. I thought twice the president in introducing Hagel basically said he's working for the enlisted man. And I thought that was an interesting way to try to preload the argument for Hagel as a man. Another interesting thing about it is when Obama came in to office he told the Pentagon I'm going to parallel park my way into existing policy. I'm not going to do a lot of crazy new things. Chuck Hagel is a pick of the new Obama doctrine whatever it may be. But Hagel, Kerry, Brennan, they're all Obama. This is the real Obama doctrine to the extent there is one.
SCHIEFFER: One thing you all might not know, I was down in Texas. The Texas papers were all filled with reports that Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the former Republican Senator, may be the pick for transportation. We'll be back in a moment.
SCHIEFFER: That's it for us today. We'll be right here at the same place next week on face the nation. Thanks for watching.