Face the Nation transcripts July 7, 2013: Hersman, McCain, McCaul, and Becerra
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on July 7, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Major Garrett, filling in for Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Deborah Hersman, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Reps. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., and Michael McCaul, R-Texas, CBS News' John Dickerson and Clarissa Ward, the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter, Reuters' David Rohde, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, and author Harold Holzer.
MAJOR GARRETT: Today on FACE THE NATION, a near miracle, as a jumbo jet crashes in San Francisco and most onboard survive. That as chaos in Egypt roils the Middle East. What caused a Boeing 777 to crash? At least two are dead but more than two hundred walked away. We'll talk to chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Deborah Hersman. In Cairo, celebrations were followed by more protests and violence. We will have the latest from CBS' Clarissa Ward in Cairo. Then, we'll ask Senator John McCain what the turmoil in Egypt means for U.S. foreign policy. And as Congress comes back to town, the battle over immigration reform moves from the Senate to the House. We will hear from two Congressmen, Republican Mike McCaul of Texas and Democrat Xavier Becerra of California. Then, an immigration reform debate with Janet Murguia, the president of the National Council of La Raza; and Dan Stein, president of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (sic). And we will analyze all of this news with David Rohde of Reuters; Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report; Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution; and our own John Dickerson. Finally, a look back on the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg with scholar Harold Holzer. There's fireworks everywhere this Independence Day weekend and this is FACE THE NATION.
ANNOUNCER: And now from CBS News in Washington, FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer. Substituting for Bob Schieffer, CBS News Chief White House Correspondent, Major Garrett.
MAJOR GARRETT: Good morning again. We start in San Francisco where just before noon yesterday Asiana Air Flight 214, a Boeing 777 with three hundred and seven passengers onboard crashed as it was landing from Seoul, South Korea. Two passengers died and more than one hundred are still in local hospitals. Deborah Hersman is the chair of the National Transportation Safety Board and joins us from San Francisco. Deborah, you've recovered the flight data recorders, the so-called black boxes. What will you be looking at first?
DEBORAH HERSMAN (National Transportation Safety Board): You know, those black boxes are really important to our investigators. The cockpit voice recorder can give us insight into what's going on with the crew in the cockpit. The flight data recorders can give us insight into what's happening with the performance of the aircraft. And so those are very important for us to be able to corroborate with the evidence that we're collecting on scene and interviews, radar data, air traffic control, all of it. We put that all together and it gives us a good picture of the accident sequence.
MAJOR GARRETT: Deborah, one external question has emerged so far. Is it true that the Glide Path Landing System at the airport was off at the time of the crash? And, if so, could that have made a difference?
DEBORAH HERSMAN: Well, what we do know is that there was a note-- note or a notice to airman that indicated that the glide slope was out. The glide slope had been out since June. There was some construction at the airport, we understand. We are going to be taking a look into this to understand it. But what's important to note is that there are a lot of tools that are available to pilots. The glide slope indicator is just one of those tools. There's-- there's information that's more primitive, things like lights that can tell you whether you're lined up too high or too low. And, then there're things that are more sophisticated like GPS, tools that are part of the aircraft that can help you come in on a glide slope. And so we'll be looking at all of those. We'll be looking at what the crew might have been using to get in and we'll want to understand all of that. But everything's on the table right now. We're taking a look at it all.
MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned too low and too slow, are there any indications that the pilots were, in fact, on approach too low and too slow?
DEBORAH HERSMAN: You know, I think it's a little bit early for us to be drawing conclusions. We want to establish the facts and let the facts guide us in our work. Today will be our first full day on scene. We've got a lot of work to do. We're going to be working to corroborate all of that information, so we understand not just what happened, but why it happened, so we can prevent something like this from occurring in the future.
MAJOR GARRETT: Deborah, you-- do you consider it a miracle or a near miracle that so many people walked away from this crash?
DEBORAH HERSMAN: What I will tell you is there was significant damage on the aircraft. Last night when we arrived, we went out to take a look at it. And you've all seen the pictures of the burned fuselage, the damaged fuselage. But inside the aircraft, there's significant structural damage and so we certainly-- when we see that, we-- we are very thankful that there weren't more fatalities and serious injuries. Our hearts go out to those who've lost loved ones and to those who are in the hospital for their recovery. But I will tell you this is a survivable accident. We saw so many people walk away and what's really important is for people to understand that airplane crashes, the majority of them, are survivable.
MAJOR GARRETT: Deborah Hersman, very good words. Chair of the Transport-- National Transportation Safety Board from San Francisco, thank you so very much for joining us.
DEBORAH HERSMAN: Thank you.
MAJOR GARRETT: We're now going to Cairo from the latest from our own Clarissa Ward. She has been covering developments across Egypt, the chaotic ones at that. Clarissa, I guess, the most basic question is who's in charge? From a distance, it appears to be the military. What can we say about the military's attempts to fill key government posts?
CLARISSA WARD (CBS News Foreign Correspondent): Well, Major, the military is almost certainly still in charge, though they are really trying to make it look like they are not. They hate the coup word. They want to have the appearance that the interim president is now running the country, so that they can really step back, reduce their footprint, and try to resume a-- a more neutral role in Egyptian politics.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do Egyptians fear a full-scale civil war?
CLARISSA WARD: Major, I think at this stage, Egyptians aren't really fearing a-- a full scale civil war, but they certainly don't rule out the possibility and they are bracing themselves for more political instability, for more protests, possibly more violence and I think everybody watching very closely to see what the Muslim Brotherhood's next move is here? Whether they take a step back and regroup and wait for more elections or whether they continue to bell-- rebel against the military's takeover.
MAJOR GARRETT: Excellent. Clarissa Ward in Cairo, thank you very, very much.
And joining us now from his home state of Arizona, Republican Senator John McCain. And Senator, as you know, Arizona-- all of Arizona has the condolences and the sympathies-- sympathies of this nation after the tragic loss of nineteen firefighters. I know you'd like to talk about that. We have got a ton of news to get to, but how is your state coping?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (Armed Services Committee/R-Arizona): I think they're coping, but I want to thank the American people for their thoughts and their prayers. And-- and their support for the families of these brave nineteen and I thank you for giving me the chance to say thank you on behalf of the people I represent. Major, thank you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Before I let you go on that, Senator, there are issues arising from sequestration across-the-board spending cuts that impact firefighting ability, not just in Arizona, but across the country. Your thoughts on that and are you going to do anything in Washington to turn it around?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: We need to turn it around obviously. It will impair our ability to combat these forest fires. By the way, a quarter of-- of Arizona's forests have been destroyed in the last ten years by forest fires and sequestration in the view of every firefighter I've talked to has said it would impair their ability to combat these devastating occurrences and so it has to be turned around.
MAJOR GARRETT: Let's talk about Egypt, Senator.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Sure.
MAJOR GARRETT: Bluntly, simply, was that a coup that we saw last week?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: It was a coup and it was the second time in two and a half years that we have seen the military step in. It's a strong indicator of the lack of American leadership and influence since we urged the military not to do that and reluctantly I believe that we have to suspend aid until such time as there is a new constitution and a free and fair election. We can't-- Morsi was a terrible president. Their economy is-- is in terrible shape, thanks to their policies, but the fact is the United States should not be supporting this coup and it's a tough call.
MAJOR GARRETT: Let me ask you specifically about this aid question, Senator. It's already gone out for this fiscal year. Are you talking about trying to pull that back or are you talking about when the new fiscal year starts if nothing has happened on free and fair elections not providing any in the future?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I don't think you can pull it back. It's already in the pipeline. But I hope that the pressure that it brings on the Egyptian military will make for a very rapid transition, we must make this transition. But the place is descending into chaos but so is the entire Middle East because of the total vacuum and lack of American leadership whether it be the massacres in Syria-- Lebanon is-- is beset by sectarian violence, Jordan is about to collapse under the weight of refugees, Iraq is unraveling, Afghanistan, we're having grave problems organizing a follow on force in Afghanistan. America has not led and America is not leading and when America doesn't lead, bad things happen and other people do lead and Egypt is just one segment of a failure of American leadership over the last five years and we need to start being leaders rather than-- than-- than bystanders.
MAJOR GARRETT: Two more quick questions on Egypt. Do you believe Egypt and the world will ever see President Morsi back in office and should it? Secondarily, you've criticized what the administration hasn't done. What should it be doing in your opinion?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: We should be standing-- first of all we should be helping the-- the resistance in Syria to stop the massacre that's going on thanks to Russia, Hezbollah, Iran. We should make it clear to Iran that their progress towards a nuclear weapon has got to be stopped. We're going to have to help Jordan and Lebanon in this problem. Iraq is unraveling. I don't know what you do about Iraq. We've already lost peace there but we have to exercise leadership. And in Egypt, we have to make it very clear that American assistance will be directly related to their transition to a civilian government and we don't claim it's going to be easy but for us to continue to support coups is a-- is a lesson of history that we should have learned a long time ago.
MAJOR GARRETT: Are you alleging that the Obama administration is tacitly approving a coup?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think it would be a mistake and frankly it would be a contradiction.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you think that's what's happened?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think they're in a dilemma. I think they're-- they're-- as usual on these issues, they're undecided and going forward with a debate while events transpire. There's no-- there's no better example of that than Syria as we continue to watch Hezbollah, thousands of fighters, we see Russian weapons pouring in and slaughter of now over a hundred thousand people and we're going to send them light weapons? Light weapons don't do well against tanks.
MAJOR GARRETT: Let's shift our attention, if you will, Senator, to immigration. On the Senate Republican side, you had fourteen votes for the Bipartisan Bill but everyone in your elected Republican leadership voted no. What does that say about the Republican leadership's attitude on this issue and how much do you think those four votes from the top leaders will affect the House Republican reception to this bill?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Well, I was disappointed, obviously, that our leadership didn't vote the other way but I'm-- I'm glad that there are many, many people and factions and interest groups going to be weighing in beginning with President George W. Bush, our-- our evangelicals, the Catholic Church, labor, business which is important, obviously, to the Republican Party. All are going to be weighing in. I respect Speaker Boehner. I respect the process that he will go through. We are not trying to dictate what the House of Representatives is-- should do and I believe that if they can come up with a bill, we would be more than eager to negotiate with them. A failure to act is de facto amnesty for eleven million people living in the shadows. I think wherever you are on that issue, there's agreement on that. So then shouldn't we sit down together and solve this-- this issue? Not only for the good of the Republican Party, but for the good of the nation.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you think the Republican Party can compete nationally and at senatorial levels if it drops the ball on this issue this year?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I do not think that that's the case. But more importantly, to live with a situation such as we have and by the-- is not something that what America should be all about and it's a tough road to-- to a legal citizen status. It's a very tough road to green card and then citizenship. It's not easy and it shouldn't be easy. But we have shown them a path forward and we hope and pray that our Republican colleagues will take up the issue and we can join together, Republicans and Democrats.
MAJOR GARRETT: Senator, I know you're averse as most politicians are to placing percentages on outcomes. But would you say right now this is a fifty-fifty proposition? Better than fifty-fifty or worse as you look at the House Republican majority dealing with this issue?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I'm an eternal optimist. I have confidence in Speaker Boehner's leadership. Paul Ryan, our vice presidential candidate, has been very supportive and-- and many others have. And-- and one thing that-- again, we don't want to do and that's have the people and our Republicans particularly in the House think we are dictating to them. We aren't. We just want them to sit down with us and-- and work together and Republicans and Democrats alike and I'm proud of what the Gang of Eight did and I'm proud of the leadership that my colleagues on the Democrat side have shown on this issue and the Gang of Eight and my Republican colleagues.
MAJOR GARRETT: Before I let you go, Senator, Edward Snowden has received asylum assurances from now three nations. If he attempts to leave Russia to go to into those three, should the United States intervene militarily to stop him, divert him or somehow capture him?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I don't think we can, Major. There're certain norms of international law but the lesson here is-- is look at this-- our relationship with Putin. That reset button, we ought to throw that away. It's clear what he is. He's an old aparachick KGB Colonel and he's not interested in better relations with the United States. If he was, he would make sure that Mister Snowden was sent back to us. We've got to have a much more realistic approach to Russia and Putin in order to comport with the realities of their relations with us.
MAJOR GARRETT: Senator McCain, thank you very much for your time this morning on FACE THE NATION. And we'll be back in just one moment.
MAJOR GARRETT: In studio with me now are two top members of the House of Representatives, Democrat Xavier Becerra, the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. He's from California. And Republican Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. He's from Texas. Congressman McCaul, thank you very much for joining us.
REPUBLICAN MICHAEL MCCAUL (Homeland Security Committee Chairman/R-Texas): Thank you.
MAJOR GARRETT: You just heard Senator McCain, he wants to make sure you House Republicans don't feel dictated to. Do you fell pressurized, dictated to by the Senate immigration bill, what is its prospects-- what are its prospects in the House of Representatives?
REPUBLICAN MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, in the House, we're going to-- we're going to do our own thing. We're going to pass our bills regular order.
MAJOR GARRETT: Meaning ignore the Senate bill?
REPUBLICAN MICHAEL MCCAUL: I-- I think, you know, we'll take a look at it. I have some concerns about the border security piece that was laid out in the Senate bill in terms of throwing forty-six billion dollars at a problem without any plan, without any strategy, without any definition of operation control. And, yeah, there's an old saying, you know, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We have no plan and that's the problem over the last decade within prior administrations.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you think that forty-six million dollars was just covered to get Senate Republican votes and because there's not a plan from your vantage point it's illegitimate?
REPUBLICAN MICHAEL MCCAUL: I believe that it's not a responsible plan. I believe it was hatched at the last minute to-- to get votes to pass what they-- they passed in the Senate. On the House side, I passed a bipartisan bill out of my committee that will be, I think, the centerpiece of the enforcement and border security piece. We can't go back to 1986, we granted amnesty to illegals and then forgot about the security provisions. And I think that's the important lesson that we can't repeat today.
MAJOR GARRETT: What is the schedule of your border security bill? Do you expect the House to consider that and pass it before the August break?
REPUBLICAN MICHAEL MCCAUL: It's possible. It could be on the floor by July, if not, I think September. The discussion is with other reform bills and we're going regular order in the House that we can get something done by-- by the September timeframe.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to help our audience deconstruct what you mean when you say regular order. That means you're going to take up specific bills addressing specific elements of the immigration debate, not comprehensive reform, a terminology that people hear all the time. You're going to do this piece by piece. And the fear is among Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans who support this legislation is the piecemeal of pro-- process will by its own slowness and gradual approach kill it off.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Interesting, usually the Senate's slower than the House, but we're going to move and do this the right way and pass our bills the right way. I do think--
MAJOR GARRETT: Why is that the right way, though?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, I think going regular order-- it's what the American people want. They don't want a comprehensive bill like what we saw with Obamacare that passed in the-- in the middle of the night. And now we're seeing what all the problems are in that bill. They don't want comprehensive. What they want is regular order pieces of legislation and, Major, you know, eventually this will put the House and Senate in a conference committee position--
MAJOR GARRETT: Sometime next year.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, it could be as early as, you know, late this year, maybe early next year.
MAJOR GARRETT: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Where we do hash out the differences between the Senate and the House versions. But again, I would argue that-- that what our bill calls for is a plan and a strategy, which we haven't had for a decade. It calls for metrics to measure success and it defines operation control. These are all key ingredients because we haven't had that before. In the past, all we've done is thrown money down at the problem on an ad hoc basis and it hasn't worked. And what the Senate just passed was, again, a bunch, you know, candy thrown down there, a bunch of assets thrown down there to gain votes, but with that methodical, smart border approach. We want a smart border. We also want a smart immigration plan, something that makes sense.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you think the President and Democrats in the House and in the Senate are setting Republicans up and want to see this issue fail and become a dominant issue in the midterm elections next year?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I am-- I am deeply concerned that the efforts should be bipartisan. Border security on my committee was a unanimously approved, completely bipartisan bill. My concern is the political backdrop could be that the White House would like to see this fail in the House, so that he can blame the House of Representatives for that and then try to take back the House of Representatives and then all bets are off on his agenda.
MAJOR GARRETT: That's the politics side of it. Before I let you go, the policy side of it is do you believe there are two hundred and eighteen House Republican votes for anything that is a pathway to citizenship or a legalization mechanism that starts very soon after enactment of any legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: We-- we have a GOP conference on Wednesday to talk about immigration--
MAJOR GARRETT: But you have a sense already, don't you?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: What's that?
MAJOR GARRETT: You have a sense of this question already.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I think-- I think you've identified probably the two key hot spots, one would be path to citizenship and one would be applying Obamacare. And so I think those are going to be the issues that are going to be hashed out in our conference on Wednesday and we have a full healthy debate about it. But I do think as the Speaker said we need to be the party of solutions and not always obstructing and so I think there's an effort here that we have a broken immigration system. We need to fix this immigration system and, frankly, I want the best and the brightest in here. I don't want an uncontrolled Southwest border and a random lottery system.
MAJOR GARRETT: Very good. Congressman McCaul, thank you very much for joining us.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Thanks Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: Congressman Becerra, you heard him now. Let's talk about the politics first. Republicans believe Democrats are trying to set them up on this issue. How do you respond to that and how do you believe, that perception--true or not--may affect an influence of the outcome legislatively?
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA (Democratic Caucus Chairman/D-California): Major, first I-- I think there's a reason to feel comfortable with a lot of what Chairman McCaul just said because he did pass a bill that was a bipartisan vote on border security. He did talk about getting this done. Where we probably disagree is on trying to do this in a piecemeal way which won't fix the entire machine. You got to fix the entire machine.
MAJOR GARRETT: What's your fear about a piecemeal approach? Your principal overwriting fear.
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: Well, if the machine is broken you got lots of broken parts. You fix one part doesn't mean the machine is going to work well. And we have a system that Americans across the country say is broken. It needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed at the border. It needs to be fixed at the workplace. It needs to be fixed for all those folks who are trying to come in the right way, the legal way through a visa and you need to fix it for the eleven-- ten or eleven million people who are still working and living in this country in the shadows. And so you do want-- you still have a system that's broken. And so I think there's a reason to feel optimistic if indeed Chairman McCaul's Republican colleagues will follow him. But let me-- let me guarantee you, Democrats aren't doing this to try to have a political issue next November. The Senate had a bipartisan vote sixty-eight out of hundred senators in a place that hardly gets any work done these days, sixty-eight is a good vote. And the fact is the amendment put up by Republicans, as Mister Chairman McCaul said, probably beefs up the border, but probably throws away some money. That was because Republicans needed essentially a security blanket to feel comfortable about border security. Democrats supported that because I think we understand the American people are saying get it done.
MAJOR GARRETT: Some skeptics might say Democrats accepted that money, A, because it's authorized only, meaning it's not appropriated, meaning there is no guarantee behind that money, and that the other elements of it, border fencing, there's a law in existence right now that calls for border fencing, not enforced. That it was a kind of fig leaf that accomplished something legislatively, but won't really happen. That's why it made it easier for Democrats to accept that. How do you respond to that?
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: Our immigration laws reflect American values and our priorities. Not Republican values and priorities or Democratic values and priorities. And so when we do something on the border or at the workplace or with the undocumented, it should reflect what Americans want us to do and quite honestly they're saying, fix the entire system. So I think what you're finding is that there will be a compromise, a smart compromise. You got to be smart, you got to be tough, but you've got to be fair. And if you can do that, you'll have a full fix. And I think the Senate-- while I disagree with some components of the Senate bill and I certainly disagree with a lot of the components of the Senate amendment that as-- as Chairman McCaul said threw money at the problem-- I think what the Senate did was what the American people are wanting: get it done.
MAJOR GARRETT: You know very well the House Democratic Caucus, its sentiments on this. Let's talk about the two issues that the chairman raised. Application of Obamacare, which the President uses and embraces that terminology, no longer pejorative, and either legalization or pathway to citizenship. Where does your caucus want this legislation to end up on those two issues?
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: Well, you can't tell a kid who was a valedictorian at his high school who's been accepted to Stanford University or one of the best colleges in the country that he can't move forward anymore because we can't get things done. As Senator McCain just said, failure to do anything, failure to act on immigration is de facto amnesty. And so we got to get something done.
MAJOR GARRETT: So you need legalization, you need a pathway to citizenship, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: Yeah, you cannot fix our broken immigration system, if you don't deal with the four components that I mentioned.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you need the application of the President's healthcare law?
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: You need to-- I think Democrats and Republicans agree. We're not going to start by providing taxpayer subsidies to the folks that we're going to try to bring into-- into the system legally. And so therefore I think Democrats and Republicans agree--
MAJOR GARRETT: They'll be outside the system for a while.
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: They will be outside-- they can pay--
MAJOR GARRETT: The healthcare system?
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: They would be able to pay for healthcare. They won't get the taxpayer subsidies that American citizens would get. But they're never going to be outside the healthcare system because if they get hurt, we're a civilized society, we're not going to watch them die like dogs and so we're going to have to figure out a way to do this in a-- again a smart way, tough, because they're going to have to pay their way, but smart.
MAJOR GARRETT: What is your best guess on a timetable for this legislation? The chairman said it could be in conference late this year or early next year. Are you that optimistic?
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: I would hope that we would do it sooner than later. But it's really--
MAJOR GARRETT: Are you fearful the longer it goes, the worst it gets--
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: Absolutely.
MAJOR GARRETT: --and greater the chance for failure.
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA: Once you started into 2014 it's all politics. And so I hope that Republicans recognize that we have got to get this done quickly, but it's-- that's the question Republicans have to answer because now the ball is in their court. We can't have them using this so-called Hastert Rule, which is a Republican rule. We have got to use process that lets us get this done.
MAJOR GARRETT: Congressman Becerra, thank you very much. And we'll be right back.
MAJOR GARRETT: Stay with us for more FACE THE NATION.
MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We are joined here in studio by Dan Stein, president for the American Federate-- Federation, rather, for American Immigration Reform; and Janet Murguia. She's the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza. She joins us this morning from Kansas City. Janet, let me start with you. What is the best thing about the Senate-passed bill that you think Republicans in the House ought to know but don't know.
JANET MURGUIA (National Council of La Raza): Well, I think the best thing about the Senate-passed bill is that it really tries to address the issue of immigration reform in a comprehensive way and that there are real answers for this problem in this bill. We want them to know that there is a path to legalization and citizenship that actually is a tough and narrow one that allows for criminal background checks, that allows for folks to go to the back of the line and that make sure that we are doing everything from a security standpoint to create a strong immigration reform system. And for us I think that's really important. It's clear that there has been a lot of concern around the security aspects of this bill but I think it's fair to say that there has been a lot done. It's very above and beyond what we know is from a policy perspective necessary but I think politically it does address all the-- all the issues that most Republicans would care about.
MAJOR GARRETT: Dan, what's wrong with the Senate bill that Senate Republicans who voted for it don't understand and need to and should inform the way the House Republicans deal with this issue?
DAN STEIN (Federation for American Immigration Reform): Look, Major, at fair we scrubbed all twelve hundred pages of this bill, we can tell you exactly what is in there and I guarantee you, the senators who voted for this bill and certainly most of the Republicans have not read the bill. It is a huge massive bill. The so-called path to citizenship amnesty program is a fraction of what the deal bills with. Ultimately, it unleashes a massive increase in overall immigration, major increase in job competition at a time when we have structural unemployment, increasing income inequality, wages are flat for most workers. Essentially, it gives up on the American worker by simply suggesting that at every level of the labor market employers should be able to bring in foreign workers. We're talking about a population increase under the Senate bill of over seventy million people in twenty years. Seventy million people. Now the CBO went and scored this thing and took it as--
MAJOR GARRETT: Congressional Budget Office.
DAN STEIN: Yes, Congressional Budget Office took out for only ten years and said, you know, some of the workers are going to be paying Social Security but not taking benefits without looking at the long range. Over the long term we are-- if you pass a bill like the Senate bill, the borders will never be secure. Illegal immigration will continue. We'll continue to see Americans driven out of the labor market right now and special interests that control the debate. All through the Senate process will control how many people come in and under what conditions. The House has to turn around and basically say forget about the Senate bill. The Senate bill was drafted in a corrupt fashion with special interest. There were no amendments practically adopted on the Senate floor, Reid had the fix in, Schumer did and let me tell you, we've been down the road with Schumer back in 1986 and we know the Senate bill will not control our borders or stop illegal immigration and it will not serve the interest of the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: But, Dan, there was an amendment, a very--
DAN STEIN: One amendment.
MAJOR GARRETT: --visible amendment.
DAN STEIN: One.
MAJOR GARRETT: A big amendment. Forty-six billion dollars of border security, increasing the Border Patrol--
DAN STEIN: Oh, they authorized a lot of money--
MAJOR GARRETT: --from twenty thousand to forty thousand.
DAN STEIN: No, that was-- that was--
MAJOR GARRETT: That's a whole--
DAN STEIN: --a total sop to spare. Everything about this-- the Senate bill is special interest, power politics, financial greed. We are talking a public policy disaster. Who is not at the table-- the table in the Senate bill? The American people. What we're going to do at fair it spent millions of dollars to make sure the American people understand what is in the Senate bill, already they're starting to demonstrate outside members of Congress's offices. This is not the path the American people or the-- this nation should be taking on immigration.
JANET MURGUIA: Major--
MAJOR GARRETT: Dan, I want you to-- I know there's many things--
JANET MURGUIA: Major--
MAJOR GARRETT: --you want to respond. Jump in, please.
JANET MURGUIA: Sure. Well, I think the fact is that there-- this bill does have not only broad bipartisan support and we saw strong Republican support in the Senate bill but it has the strong support of the American people. What Dan said couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is is that we have a majority of support of the American people for this bill and certainly for a comprehensive approach reform to immigration system. And this bill has the support of progressives and conservatives. Grover Norquist has thrown his full support behind this bill. He is not someone who is a softy or a lefty here. We also have seen evangelical and conservative support behind this bill and we've seen the chamber, labor, business, all kinds of folks from across the spectrum are supportive of this bill and it's because it has the broad support of the American people. The American people want a solution and this bill offers a solution. But what's key is for the House to offer their own version of the solution if that's what they want. And we want to see progress on this reform. And the House has a unique opportunity right now to really put their imprimatur on a bill and move it forward. That's all the American people want. They want to see us create a solution. The Senate bill is a bipartisan solution that has broad American support. We want the House to create a solution. We'll put these bills in conference and then let's get this issue done and off the table. That's what the American people want. The senate bill offers a great model and a framework that has bipartisan support and is greatly and widely supported by the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: But, Janet, you heard--
JANET MURGUIA: Let the House--
MAJOR GARRETT: --on this very set--
JANET MURGUIA: --do-- do their job.
MAJOR GARRETT: You heard on this very set Congressman McCaul and Congressman Becerra agree on one thing, that the Senate amendment that added all that money on Border Patrol and border control was probably too much money, that there isn't a good plan behind it and may waste taxpayer dollars. Do you agree with that?
JANET MURGUIA: Oh, absolutely, not. I believe that there is an excessive amount of security money in this bill. There's no question about that.
MAJOR GARRETT: And you're willing to live with that?
JANET MURGUIA: But what you know-- well, look, this is a difficult process for many of us who want sto see a solution on this. There've been a lot of compromises already made in this Senate bill. And, frankly, there are folks in my constituency and, certainly, across the-- the spectrum who have a lot of concerns about the investments we've already made son security. We put eighteen billion dollars--
DAN STEIN: Let me--
JANET MURGUIA: --alone last year, more than all enforcement agencies combined on the-- on securing the border.
MAJOR GARRETT: Janet, let me pick up on that point with Dan.
JANET MURGUIA: This is going to be an additional thirty-- thirty billion. This is an additional thirty billion. So for folks to say that it's not going a long way to address this problem is simply not true. We will have a secure border. The question is we need to reform the rest of the system. We have a great approach in the Senate bill that addresses the legal immigration system--
MAJOR GARRETT: Dan--
JANET MURGUIA: --and one that will bring order and restore the rule of law. That's what the American people want.
MAJOR GARRETT: Right. Dan, what you're hearing from Janet is on the left or from her perspective, her constituents, they're at the breaking point. They've compromised all they're going to compromise. Is that music--
DAN STEIN: Compromise?
MAJOR GARRETT: --to your ears. Do you think that this--
DAN STEIN: There's no compromise in the Gang of Eight and the Senate process. The amendment process was locked in in Judiciary Committee and then it was locked in in the floor. There were almost-- there were nine amendments when there were three hundred and some filed. Reid basically kept a lockdown. Look, the-- the Senate bill, ultimately, is a political disaster ultimately for the Republican Party for one very simple reason: Latinos are going to vote Republican when the-- the economy provides an opportunity to provide upward mobility. The Democrats in 2008 started playing ethnic power politics and trying to basically convince the Republicans that if they didn't play-- they didn't bend the rules, if you will, with amnesty and other things, they were going to forever be annihilated. And Lindsey Graham has repeated that canard. The Republicans need a populist message again about restoring the American middle class through a tighter labor market. The Democrats need to stop playing power politics, ethnic power politics with this-- with this- with this spoil system that now created with this-- created now with a Senate bill. What we have to do is start over in the next Congress. We can't see the Senate bill get conferenced with anything that passes the House because the Senate bill is a twelve-hundred-page behemoth public policy disaster. And the reason why Boehner and those guys don't want to go to conferences is there's so many special interest gifts in the Senate bill--
MAJOR GARRETT: Right. Dan, we got to go.
DAN STEIN: --it would never produce a good bill. Thanks, Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: Dan Stein, federation-- American-- Federation for American Immigration Reform and Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza. Thank you very much for joining us. And we'll be back in just one minute.
MAJOR GARRETT: And now our very capable panel is here to, indeed, tell us what all of this means. We are joined by David Rohde, he's a columnist for Reuters and the author of Beyond War: Reimagining American Influence in a New Middle East. Michael O'Hanlon is a top expert--trust me he is--at the Brookings Institution. Amy Walter is with the Cook Political Report. And it says here last but certainly not least, we always say that. John, it's great to have you, CBS political news director John Dickerson. David, did the U.S. government see what is happening in Egypt coming and Senator McCain dodged this question, do you ever think Mohammed Morsi will be back in power or see yesterday's news forever?
DAVID ROHDE (Reuters): Did the U.S. government see it coming? I think they didn't. And I think that they-- a fair criticism of the Obama administration is that they really had a hands-off approach to Egypt. They could have been more aggressive from the beginning with a simple line of we support democracy. And when Morsi veered from that, they could have been, you know, put more pressure on him publicly and now they're sort of in a big mess. Mohammed Morsi may be gone but the Muslim Brotherhood is not. They have a very large group of supporters in that country. Still, it's a very dangerous situation and thinking that we can just go with military rule, it's not going to work.
MAJOR GARRETT: What's the biggest danger?
DAVID ROHDE: I think that it polarizes the situation more. That members of the Muslim Brotherhood resort to violence. I mean there's a message. They-- they listen to what we say and they listen to our, you know, promotion of democracy and then we have an elected leader who is toppled in a coup. And they see that hypocrisy from the West and, frankly, that helps hard-line Islamists, extremists like al Qaeda who say you want democracy for yourselves but when an Islamist wins you don't allow democracy.
MAJOR GARRETT: Michael, the administration tells me, look, we did sort of see this coming but there's not a lot we could have done to stop it, first of all. Second of all, they say with Morsi there were many different factors involved; decent relations with Israel, Gaza, Sinai, all of which they were generally cooperative on. We couldn't have beaten them up over other things, though, we might have wanted to. Is that a legitimate argument? Do you see--as Senator McCain saw or sees-- this kind of either indifference or lack of authority in the voicing of the administration on this question?
MICHAEL O'HANLON (Brookings): I think administration was a little passive. But I think the bigger question now is how do we make sure that we do better next time. And I think what we're going to have to do is push the caretaker government towards the early elections but also with some kind of a willingness to let the Muslim Brotherhood win again if they do win. Within different constraints--
MAJOR GARRETT: No matter what that means?
MICHAEL O'HANLON: Well, no.
MAJOR GARRETT: Okay.
MICHAEL O'HANLON: It matters how they would govern and that's where I think the Egyptians and the international community need to say there are going to be different constraints this time because we're at a point of creating a constitution, creating a system that works. And in that period of time you have to be inclusive. You have to be inclusive in form and in substance. You have to have a cabinet that's diverse. You can't shut down civil society. You can't try to pressure the media. And you need to govern within certain bounds. And you could have debates about some things we wouldn't hear. You know dress codes or the way in which Friday prayers have to be allowed by any employer. Certain things that reflect the political Islam that's very important in Egypt. And I think you have to acknowledge Egypt wants that kind of a debate and the Muslim Brotherhood has a right to insist on it. But you cannot see a trend towards autocracy, towards the Muslim Brotherhood or anybody else trying to shunt off or stomp and prevent other groups from participating in politics. So, you've got to have constraints on the future way in which any new winner would govern. And that needs to be set clearly by the Egyptian military, by the caretaker government, more importantly, and by the United States.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, do you think passivity whether it's applied either in a political context or from an analytical one, is one that's going to stick with this administration and do any long-term harm?
JOHN DICKERSON (CBS News Political Director): Well, I think it will in part because if you look across Syria, if you look at Egypt, if you look wherever that the administration is-- if you look at the Edward Snowden case, the wrap against the President is that he doesn't get involved, he is a bystander, he reacts to events. And, of course, what you hear from the administration is, you know, if we were messing with Egypt, if we were trying to assert our will that would immediately destabilize the argument going on because of this heavy hand of the imperialist is-- is messing in here. And what they what-- what's been hard to find is an argument for intervention-- maybe the moment is now, maybe it is in this coalition government that has to be formed or some way to get a role for the Muslim Brotherhood. But what the argument is for what they could have done that wasn't passive. What-- what intervention they could have played that would have affected and changed things in a significant way to change the outcome.
MAJOR GARRETT: Amy, I want to talk to you about immigration because we had not-- quite obviously, a lively debate here on the set and an interesting one between the two members of Congress from the House and the Democratic and Republican side. Where do you think the House Republicans are currently? They have a huge private behind-closed doors meeting Wednesday here in Washington to sort out where they're going to come down. Where do you think they are? And where do you think they're going to evolve to? Or do you think they're going to evolve at all on this issue?
AMY WALTER (The Cook Political Report): Where they start is a very different place from where the Senate starts and for where the national party starts. The national party and a lot of folks in the Senate are worried about 2016 and the Electoral College math. We heard a lot about that in-- in the conversations you had today, that winning Latino voters and being able to win national elections. If you're a House member you're worried about 2014 and the reality for these members of Congress, who are Republicans, is that 2014 election is not dictated or determined or affected very much at all by Latino vote. Most of these members sit in very, very safe districts and when you look at the most recent redistricting what you come up with is an average Republican district that is seventy-five percent white. So increasing the vote of Latinos, increasing the percentage of the vote that Republicans get from Latinos isn't going to affect them. What they're more worried about, of course, is if they vote for a bill that's going to get them a challenge from the right. That's their bigger concern.
MAJOR GARRETT: And is it your sense that it's racial politics just on a different level and viewed through a different prism for House Republicans, as they look at primaries, not the broader context of the demographic changes in America?
AMY WALTER No, I think it is a broader context of the demographic changes. It's just a real question of an incentive problem, right? So politics isn't very complicated. It's about what's in it for me and there's not a whole lot in it for many of these House Republicans what they're being told by leadership and what they're being told by the folks at the national level is this is good for the party. We can't win elections without this.
MAJOR GARRETT: John.
JOHN DICKERSON: And imagine you're a member standing up in August at these-- what are going to be some--
MAJOR GARRETT: Right.
JOHN DICKERSON: --pretty tough town halls. You cannot stand up and say well, you know, the politics of this work out. The people in your district are going to be angry at hearing that. And also, one of the things that's they're hurting the comprehensive immigration reform movement here, is that the politics are falling away a little bit. There's an argument that the problem in 2012 wasn't the Hispanic voters, it was the falloff in white voters. As long as there-- that is a debatable proposition, it removes one of the weapons from the argument, those who would argue for comprehensive immigration reform.
MAJOR GARRETT: David and Michael, I want to get back to the Middle East for a second, because Senator McCain brought up Syria and other issues. When I talk to people at the-- at the White House, what they often say is, look, this is a completely different book we were handed. This is not the book that any other administration was handled on Middle East. Changes are hour by hour, day by day, and they're tumultuous. They're very hard to get your arms around. And if you intervene, you could run a greater risk of making a bigger mistake than this allegation of passivity. How do you respond to that, David?
DAVID ROHDE: I think the administration could have a much clearer sort of just public position about, you know, its-- its goals in the region that there's more options than simply we intervene militarily, we dictate events on the ground, we control everything and doing absolutely nothing. And a real problem is--
MAJOR GARRETT: And how close do you think they are--
DAVID ROHDE: To--
MAJOR GARRETT: --to absolutely nothing?
DAVID ROHDE: Well, it's-- you know, this is an incredibly cautious White House and one of the best things I have heard is that they're-- they're-- they're very good at making sort of clear decisions on clear issues. The really, really difficult decisions they tend to split the difference. And you saw that a bit. You've seen that in Syria with arming the rebels, you see that a bit now in Egypt where the President has a tough statement and then, you know, I don't know how this happened, but it was terrible optics, the next day the President goes golfing and Secretary Kerry is out on his yacht. What does that say to young people in Egypt across the Middle East whether-- whatever part of the debate about America's interests in the region and democracy--
MAJOR GARRETT: Mm.
DAVID RHODE: --and these-- this is-- there is a historic struggle in the region between conservative Islamists and secular liberals, we should be backing those secular liberals--
MAJOR GARRETT: And, Michael, to the point the administration makes, this is exploding before our very eyes and nobody knows where it's heading and don't fault us for being a little bit timid.
MICHAEL O'HANLON: Well, on Egypt I think this is a moment where we actually need to be willing to offer a good Egyptian government more help than we've been offering. This is a big deal. Egypt is the heart of the Arab world. We've been giving them 1.5 billion a year for a long time. If they do the right things--
MAJOR GARRETT: You want to double it?
MICHAEL O'HANLON: --we-- we should think about doubling it as part of an international effort. Their economy is half the problem here. And this is small potatoes compared to the size of our economy or any war budget that we ultimately have to account for if-- if a place like that falls apart. So that's where the Obama administration could raise its sights a bit without having to go to the extent-- extent of an Iraq or an Afghanistan.
MAJOR GARRETT: Very quickly. We got forty-five seconds for both of you. John, there was a big decision made last week on the health care law. Break it apart. Tell us what the politics are, if you could?
JOHN DICKERSON: Sure. In a policy matter this affects businesses with more than fifty employees. They are no longer going to have to buy--for a year anyway--insurance for their employees. They got to stay of execution. But that only affects-- ninety-four percent of those companies already cover people. So this affects a small number of those businesses, only that six percent. Politically, the White House decided to take the hit now, take the embarrassment over-- over-- that's the July Fourth weekend to the extent anybody is paying attention instead of having drip, by drip, by drip as this gets implemented and as businesses angry with that.
MAJOR GARRETT: Any indicative of deep embedded flaws in the law or just as the White House says we're listening and adapting?
AMY WILLER: There are going to be some serious problems ruling this out. They know this is going to happen. But what's going to happen with Obamacare, the biggest threat to is death by a thousand anecdotes and this was going to be an anecdote of companies laying people off or not re-upping their hours, things like that, because of this health care law. It takes that issue off the table for now, but there are still plenty of other anecdotes that are going to come out because, remember, if you are an individual, you still have to get covered.
MAJOR GARRETT: Excellent. Amy, John, Michael, David, thank you so very much. We'll be right back with a little bit of Civil War history.
MAJOR GARRETT: Last week marked the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of one of the decisive battles, well, as a amateur civil war buff, I would call the decisive battle of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg. Re-enactors were out in force recreating the battle that started on July 1, 1863. To tell us a little bit about that battle and what that war means today is scholar Harold Holzer. He's the author of more than forty books on President Lincoln, and the news-- and the Civil War. And his new book is The Civil War in 50 Objects. And, Professor, you're also a script consultant on the Academy Award-winning movie Lincoln. It's a delight to have you on the set. First of all, for those who are not immersed in Civil War history, why was Gettysburg so important, not only as a battle, but as a symbol of that war and a symbol of reconciliation later?
HAROLD HOLZER (The Civil War in 50 Objects): First of all, it was a battle. It represented the Confederacy's last attempt to humiliate the North into giving up the idea of a single union, marching into Pennsylvania and heading, I think--I've always thought toward Philadelphia--to raise the Confederate flag over Independence Hall on July Fourth. I think that was the subtext of Lee's invasion of the North.
MAJOR GARRETT: And why he was so adamant to keep fighting that battle, even though, on the first two days, the-- the South suffered setbacks and some were urging, as James Longstreet said, "Let's get out and re-- reform at another place and another time."
HAROLD HOLZER: Oh, second guessers say he should have gone around the round tops and headed back toward Washington, but he wanted to fight it out there. That he decided on that ill-fated Pickett's Charge, which, of course, was doomed.
MAJOR GARRETT: And that as a symbol of reconciliation, why does Gettysburg matter so much?
HAROLD HOLZER: Well, first of all, Lincoln consecrates it in November as the place where a new birth of freedom occurs, where once and for all it's clear that slavery is not going to live in this country. The Emancipation Proclamation is only six months old when Gettysburg occurs. And when Lee's forces enter Maryland, they're actually picking up free African Americans and kidnapping them or whatever and intending to send them back to slavery. So this is an anti-African American march by the Confederacy. As Lincoln points out, we still have unfinished work to do when he gets to Gettysburg, but we've proved that-- that America will survive and it'll survive free. And then the Great Reconciliation, I guess, people talk about 1913, a hundred years ago when these old veterans walked across the field on their shaky legs and shook hands. But it was a reconciliation that did exclude African Americans. It was all about the white soldiers having one last blast on the place where they had achieved immortality.
MAJOR GARRETT: Still much more work to do. I want to talk briefly while we have a moment about your book and the 50 Objects--
HAROLD HOLZER: Right.
MAJOR GARRETT: --in the Civil War. We've identified one. It's one of your favorites. It's a charred bible used at a colored orphan asylum, circa 1863. Talk to us about why the subject is important to you? Why it resonates so much in this story.
HAROLD HOLZER: Well, I'm a New Yorker. This Bible was used, as you put it in the so-called Colored Orphan's Asylum on Fifth Avenue and 43rd street in New York City. A hundred and fifty years ago next weekend was the New York City draft riots, and after shock of Gettysburg that people don't talk about that much.
MAJOR GARRETT: Briefly, those were the draft riots?
HAROLD HOLZER: A reaction against conscription, but it turned into a full blast race riot, sort of a pogrom, to get African Americans out of New York and to punish them for the draft law because it was perceived by some in New York that the war was now being directed toward emancipation instead of union. And the draft itself was very unpopular because it-- it pre-- rich people could get out of it by paying a bounty. So, anyway, the-- the rioters on-- on July thirteenth reached this orphanage, set fire to it with two hundred and thirty-three kids trapped inside and they have nowhere to go. So the-- the-- the headmaster leads them out and a little girl grabs the Bible from which prayers were read every morning. And as she walks out, it's singed with smoke and flame and it survives. The kids survived, barely. Thanks--
MAJOR GARRETT: Kids and the book survived.
HAROLD HOLZER: And the book. And they're in the New York Historical Society.
MAJOR GARRETT: Fantastic. Professor Harold Holzer, thank you so very much for joining us. We appreciate it very much. That's it for us today. Thank you very much for watching FACE THE NATION. And we'll be right back.