Face the Nation transcripts September 29, 2013: Durbin, Paul, Blackburn, Van Hollen, Brzezinski

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on September 29, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., Reps. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gerald Seib, David Ignatius, Clarissa Ward, Margaret Brennan and John Dickerson.

SCHIEFFER: And good morning, again. Well, Congress was at work until early this morning, but instead of averting a shutdown that will begin Monday at midnight the House voted to postpone the implementation of ObamaCare for a year before they will agree to fund the government. That now goes back to the Senate for further action, but leaders say it is dead on arrival. Nothing is likely to happen today, because Congress has headed home for the weekend and won't be back in session until tomorrow. So we are going start this morning with Kentucky Republican and key Tea Party leader Rand Paul. He is in Bowling Green this morning. Senator, thank you so much. Let me just ask you flat out. Are you willing to take the blame if the government shuts down?

PAUL: You know, I have said all along it is not a good idea to shut down government, I have been saying that for months but also think that it is not a good idea to give the president 100 percent of what he wants on ObamaCare without compromise. We have been offering him compromises, many on his side say there are problems, the Teamsters say there is a problem, Warren Buffett says there are problems, even former President Bill Clinton says there are problems with ObamaCare, why won't the president negotiate and come to a compromise on trying to make ObamaCare less bad?

SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator, I kind of take your point and I think a lot of people agree there are things to be done about this law that could make it better, but how can you hold the entire federal government hostage just because you want to postpone his signature achievement? He is not going to do that. The Senate is not going to do that. You know that and you know even if they did that the president would veto it, I mean, isn't this just an exercise to accomplish nothing?

PAUL: Well, I guess, Bob, what I don't know, he already by executive fiat has delayed the employer mandate, which is a key component of that, we think that is going outside the Constitution and the president is not allowed to write legislation. So all we are asking is, if he thinks it's so messed up that he's going to delay a big part of ObamaCare on his own, and it looks like maybe he is going to do some special favors for the unions, why don't we actually bring it to Congress and try to figure out how to meet somewhere in the middle? But see, he is saying 100 percent of ObamaCare or the highway. The president is the one saying I will shut down government if you don't give me everything I want on ObamaCare. That to me is the president being intransigent and being unwilling to compromise.

SCHIEFFER: But the law has already been passed, Senator, let me just ask you this question. I am old enough to remember when Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, and he said I would rather be right than president. And you know, he got his wish. He lost in a landslide. Aren't you and the other Tea Party leaders leading the Republican Party to the same fate?

PAUL: Well, see, the thing is is that once things are passed doesn't mean they are set in stone and no future Congress will look at them. For example, when Reagan came in, the rates had been 70 percent on the top bracket for 40 years, but he didn't say, oh, that's the law so we can't readdress it, ObamaCare was passed. But the public has a great deal of misgivings, I have a lot of misgivings, I am worried that there won't be many choices left, that you are going to destroy the individual market. If I want to go out and buy a high deductible plan, ObamaCare is making that illegal, so I think there is really a problem with limiting people's choices and we should continue to have this debate, but it is the president who is refusing to come to the negotiating table. We have been offering, we have now offered a new compromise, our new compromise is not getting rid of his signature achievement, but delaying it to make sure that it doesn't totally destroy the insurance market in our country.

SCHIEFFER: Is there -- let me just ask you this. Is there a way out of this? Democrats are not going to go along with postponing healthcare. You don't have the votes to override a veto. Is there a third way, is there some way to prevent the government from having to shut down and putting 800,000 federal workers on furlough? These are people, many of whom work by the hour. They need the money. This is going to -- this is really going to hurt them. Is there a way to prevent that from happening?

PAUL: I think there is a way. And I have been saying all along that we should negotiate. See, historically, Bob, the way it worked is if the House was Republican and passed something and the Senate was Democrat and passed something, you had a conference committee, equal number of Republicans and Democrats, and you hashed out your differences. Why don't we have a conference committee on this? You could appoint one today; they could meet tomorrow and hash out the differences. That is the way it is supposed to work. Republicans and Democrats are supposed to find a middle ground, but right now, it is the president saying my way or the highway, if I don't get everything I want, if I don't get ObamaCare the Democrats passed without any Republican support, the Democrats are saying they are willing to shut down the government.

SCHIEFFER: But, you know, Senator, with all due respect it is a little more complicated than that, because you have got not just Republicans versus Democrats, you have got Republicans versus Republicans. You have got Senate Republicans versus House Republicans. You have got Republican Senator Ted Cruz who is advising House Republicans to go against their own leadership in the House, so it is going to take more than a conference committee. I mean you would have to set up 15 or 20 committees to try to resolve all of the controversies that are going on right now. Do you disagree with that?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Well, I didn't say it was going to be easy, but I would say that that is the way you are supposed to hash it out. The president shouldn't get -- I mean, 53 percent of the public voted for the president, 47 percent or so voted for Romney. In the House the majority of the House members are elected by Republicans. Why would it not be that we defend what we support? The president defends what he supports and that we have to find a compromise? The president is saying no compromise. I will not touch ObamaCare. But the interesting thing is, he has amended ObamaCare probably 15 times already, but he does it without any legislative approval, which we think is unconstitutional, but it is also showing that he is just going to fix the law on his own without any approval of Congress. We think he should come to Congress. We should negotiate how to fix or make ObamaCare less bad. We are the party that is willing to compromise. They are the party that says no way. We are not touching ObamaCare.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator, I am going to thank you for joining us this morning. I don't see you coming off your position right now. So let's go to a Democrat in Springfield, Illinois, the number two Democrat in the Senate, Richard Durbin. Senator, thank you so much for joining us too. Well, you just heard Senator Paul. What do you -- what is going to happen here?

DURBIN: Well, I am afraid, Bob, that we know what is going to happen. Tomorrow the Senate will come in session. The House position, which is basically the same one they sent us the last time, is going to be rejected again and we are going to face the prospect of the government shutting down come midnight Monday night, Tuesday morning. And that is sad; as you mentioned 800,000 federal workers will be the victims of this Republican shutdown strategy, but even more important, it hurts our economy. For goodness sakes, we are just starting to recover and create jobs and strengthen the economy and the leaders in business tell us, don't do this. Don't shut down the government, don't fail to pay the government's bills with the debt ceiling, and that is exactly what the Republicans are hell-bent on doing.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think the government is going to shut down? At this point, do you think that is really going to happen?

DURBIN: I am afraid I do. I watched what happened last night --

(CROSSTALK)

DURBIN: I do. I watched what happened last night in the House of Representatives. I was waiting for at least some Republicans to step up and say this shutdown strategy is going to destroy our party and its image. Look at this, Bob, 75 percent of Republicans across America reject this Tea Party strategy of shutting down the government, 75 percent of Republicans. And if they do, imagine, as you can guess, what the larger population feels. This is a terrible, destructive strategy, totally unnecessary.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. Some of the things that we just heard Senator Paul say. He said the president by fiat himself postponed part of this program, and, you know, there is a lot of concern out there that this program really isn't ready yet, that the penalties for employers, that still is to be worked out. There is likely to be more problems within the system. What if you came up with a kind of compromise that said, OK, we won't postpone it for a year but three months, six months? Does that have any appeal to you?

DURBIN: Bob, it does, and I will tell you, not to postpone it, don't get me wrong on that, I don't want to postpone it, but to sit down and talk about the future of healthcare reform, obviously, we should do this. But look what we have to work with on the other side. Almost 45 times now the House Republicans have voted to abolish ObamaCare, not to change it, not to come up with any specific change. The closest they have come is with this medical device tax. But if there is to be a construct conversation about the future of healthcare reform, it's going forward, I fully support that. But let's sit down in a bipartisan and calm way, not with the prospect of shutting down the government or shutting down the economy.

SCHIEFFER: What about his -- Senator Paul's suggestion that you form a conference committee and sit down, would you go for that? To keep from shutting down the government?

DURBIN: Conferee committees are the normal course of action. We have been trying for more than six month to get the Senate Republicans to agree to a conference committee on the budget. They refuse a conference committee when it comes to our budget. When it comes to healthcare reform there should be an orderly process. We are going forward with healthcare reform. That is a good thing for America. So that many people currently without health insurance will have it for the first times time in their lives and the policies that all of us the buy are going to be worth more, they won't reject kid for preexisting conditions for example. That's a good thing.

SCHIEFFER: What about repealing this tax on healthcare devices? These -- what about that?

DURBIN: Isn't it interesting, Bob, that...

SCHIEFFER: Medical devices.

DURBIN: ...the Republicans -- yes, medical devices. Isn't it interesting, the Republicans which talk so much -- who talk so much about deficit reduction have sent us over an amendment which adds $30 billion to the deficit and takes it right out of the healthcare reform act. That is the height of irresponsibility. We can even talk about the future of that tax, let's do it in a responsible way with replacement revenue. I predict that the Senate is going to reject this House overture that was sent to us last night.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, but wouldn't that be kind of a popular thing to do away with a tax on wheelchairs and things like that? I mean, that seems to me that in the kind of environment we are in what might be something you could get together with them on.

DURBIN: Well, I support taking a look at the medical device tax. Keep in mind, though, that we anticipate millions of more patients using medical devices with some profit associated with it to the medical device companies. That is why the tax is there. But I am willing to look at that. But not with a fun to my head, not with a prospect of shutting down the government. That is what the president said, that is what we have said. There should be a constructive, positive bipartisan conversation. Bob, after the junior senator from Texas took the floor for 21 hours the other day, this last week, Senator John McCain followed him for ten minutes. There was more wisdom and common sense in what John McCain said than anything I heard in 21 hours. He said the president won the election.

SCHIEFFER: What do you do next? Let's just put all of the arguments, why it is a good thing or why it's a bad thing, put it all aside, what can be done at this point to not shut down the government?

DURBIN: We have sent from the senate a clean CR, no strings attached. We didn't demand the immigration bill passed or anything like that, a clean CR to keep the government in business and not hurt the economy. Ultimately, that is what we should do. And I hope when it comes to the debt ceiling we will do the same thing, extend the debt ceiling without endangering the economy. Then if the Republicans want to sit down and go into serious good faith negotiations, over any aspect of government, that is how it should take place.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator Durbin I want to thank you for joining us this morning. And we will stay tuned. Thank so much. We will be back in one minute with more on the budget impasse.

SCHIEFFER: Well, we are back with two key members of the House budget committee, Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn, Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen. I am not sure I need to ask either of you a question here. We just hear the questions laid out from Rand Paul and from Dick Durbin, so where do you go from here, congresswoman?

BLACKBURN: Well, we are going to wait and see what the Senate does with the proposal that we sent over. Of course it was my one year delay of Obamacare legislation that was the amendment that went on last night. We think that that is a reasonable request, the president has made 19, he and his administration, 19 delays. There have been 1,200 waivers. There are all of these problems, I have got a list of 311 employers who have already made changes to healthcare, to jobs. We need to -- we need to take a time-out on this.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this. You heard us talking about this delay. What if there was a shorter delay? What if you didn't delay it for a year? What if the president said how about three months?

BLACKBURN: Wouldn't it be great if the president would come and negotiate with us? Wouldn't it? These are the type of things that we have invited him to come and meet with us, and negotiate with us. We would love to have the president sit down and say, OK, there are some problems with Obamacare, and we have continued to bring forward ideas for healthcare reform, but we have been met with this attitude of no negotiation, I don't want to sit down. I don't want to talk about this. It is my way or the highway, but we continue to put ideas there, just hike last night.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

BLACKBURN: You know, you don't want to defund it let's go at delaying it.

SCHIEFFER: Senator -- I mean congressman.

VAN HOLLEN: Bob, Marsha wrote in an op-ed piece to her constituents the best way to defund Obamacare was to delay it and she is right about that. This is a way to prevent millions of Americans from signing up on October 1st to get more affordable care. What you are seeing play out here is the end of what Senator Richard Burr, a Republican of North Carolina, say was the dumbest idea he'd ever heard of which is this idea you are going to shut down the government if you can't prevent millions of Americans from getting affordable care. Senator McCain called it irrational. And yet what you see in the House is Speaker Boehner has essentially handed the gavel over to Senator Cruz, it is like Speaker Cruz these days. And you have the far right Tea Party wing of the caucus driving this government shutdown if they can't get their way. Now we have tried to negotiate on the budget for months and, as Senator Durbin said. I put forward a motion asking the speaker of the House to appoint budget negotiators so we could work out all of these issues. What did the speaker do? He denied the appointment of negotiators. In the Senate -- in the Senate...

BLACKBURN: ...first...

VAN HOLLEN: In the Senate, in the Senate, Mike Lee blocked the appointment of negotiators. This was a calculated strategy to drive the country to the cliff and then say, give us what we want, end the Affordable Care Act or we are going to shut down the government or default on our debt It is not the way to negotiate.

BLACKBURN: That's not exactly right. Let me also point out also there is bipartisan opposition to Obamacare, not bipartisan support. There is only partisan support. And you know good and well the Senate Democrats...

SCHIEFFER: Congresswoman, that is not entirely true. The polls don't suggest that. Polls say that most people favor it.

BLACKBURN: No. Most people oppose what is happening with Obamacare. I have looked at poll after poll after poll.

SCHIEFFER: Do you agree with that, Congressman?

VAN HOLLEN: Look, your own CBS Poll...

BLACKBURN: Look at the last night on delay, we had some Democrats vote for... VAN HOLLEN: Yeah, you had two Democrats vote and two Republicans voted the other way that is not bipartisan.

BLACKBURN: No.

VAN HOLLEN: Yes, no it's not.

BLACKBURN: Yes, it is.

VAN HOLLEN: Look, the CBS Poll shows...

BLACKBURN: So, those two Democrats don't count, their opinions don't count?

VAN HOLLEN: How about your two Republicans?

BLACKBURN: So we had bipartisan support for delay...

VAN HOLLEN: The Democrats are absolutely united that we need to make sure that millions of Americans get affordable care. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from that.

BLACKBURN: Our goal is to preserve access to affordable healthcare to all Americans. Driving up the costs of health insurance.

VAN HOLLEN: But defunding the Affordable Care Act?

BLACKBURN: I have -- I have constituents in Tennessee -- I heard from a woman this week. her insurance cost is going up five times. A school teacher, her insurance costs for her and her family, 105 percent.

VAN HOLLEN: You know, Marsha, your state...

SCHIEFFER: I don't see this going anywhere here -- let me just ask a question. Is the government going to shut down?

BLACKBURN: I hope not. The president is the one who is driving a government shutdown. He wants it, because he wants the checkbook. He wants control. And this is part of his strategy.

SCHIEFFER: Despite -- the Senate is going to reject this. I mean, even if they didn't, the president would veto it.

BLACKBURN: Let's see what they send back to us. You know, we keep sending things over. See, we continue to work to send things over to say, here you go. Here is another idea. Here is another way to do this. We do not want to shut the government down. That has been the president's strategy.

VAN HOLLEN: Here's the idea they sent over, 42 times. Repeal Obamacare never to replace it. We have always said we can make adjustments, we can make modifications but that is not what our colleagues want, they want to undermine the entire law. They want to throw the baby out with the bath water. But the crazy thing about this, Bob, Marsha is on the Budget Committee with me, the Republican budget kept major parts of ObamaCare: in fact, their budget would not balance if they hadn't kept the Medicare savings. And every penny of the revenues brought in by ObamaCare, including the amount of revenue brought in by the medical device tax, is what they have got in their budget. And their budget wouldn't balance without it, so it is a total hoax for them to say on the one hand, let's get rid of ObamaCare, when they keep major parts of ObamaCare in the budget, Marsha voted for it. Marsha, how do you explain this to me about Senator Cruz calling over there and telling Republicans not to support Speaker Boehner?

BLACKBURN: I am not aware that he called over there and told people not to support Speaker Boehner. What I will say --

SCHIEFFER: He had dinner with him.

BLACKBURN: --- is our, our leadership in the House has -- they have done a great job of listening to us. When we have said we don't want to do this, let's look at this. Let's try a different way, listening to our constituents, we are elected to represent millions of people across this country, just like those on your side of the aisle do. What we hear repeatedly from individuals, from employers, is that this law is having devastating consequences. When you look at the jobs that are being lost, when you look at the hospitals that are laying off people, hospitals that are closing, cancer patients that cannot continue to get care, they are saying, you have got to do something about the intrusive nature of ObamaCare. Look at the mess that these exchanges are in. Your online marketplace is not ready --

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: -- caused by ObamaCare. This is a campaign of distortion that has been going on for months. It started with death panels (ph).

BLACKBURN: No, it is a campaign to protect the sovereignty and the freedom of this nation.

VAN HOLLEN: Then you said that Republicans said it was a government takeover of healthcare --

SCHIEFFER: I'm going to let you all -- I will let you all finish this in the hall, OK? Let's -- our clock --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: All right, (inaudible). Thank you both. We will be back in a moment with some personal thoughts about the future of Congress. In a moment.

SCHIEFFER: I had a dream the other night. The Ghost of Congress Future took me on a flying tour of Capitol Hill and I could not believe what I saw down there. Both houses of Congress were filled with members. There were lively, spirited, informed debates going on. I am used to seeing members speak to an empty chamber. What is going on? I said. Oh, the ghost said, the people threw out the whole bunch you knew after one of those shutdown government debacles and the people demanded new rules. We pay Congress by the hour now, like most of the other government employees, and they don't get paid anymore unless they are legislating. But it is Friday afternoon, I said. Why aren't they back in their districts? Because the people stopped paying their travel expenses, the ghost said. They get one round-trip bus ticket back to their districts a year. So most of them just stay here and work. They have actually gotten to know each other and it goes a lot smoother now. Well, you must pay them well, I said. Actually, we cut their pay, the ghost said. The people decided a public office shouldn't be the most lucrative job someone ever had. We pay them about what school teachers and people at nonprofits make. It is amazing. We are getting a whole different class of candidates now, folks who do it for the same reason teachers teach. They want to help others. Then I was awakened by a noise. Some guy on TV was reciting talking points. In Washington, the nightmares don't come when you are asleep, but more often when you are awake. Back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Back to FACE THE NATION, and we are honored this morning to have joining us Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at President Jimmy Carter's side as his national security adviser, the last time an American president had any contact with an Iranian president. He is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington. Dr. Brzezinski, thanks for joining us, let me just ask you a basic question, can we trust Iran?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: We can trust Iran the way we can trust any nation, and particularly a nation with whom we have had lost of disagreements. But think of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was led by leadership that killed millions of people. It acquired nuclear weapons. It was threatening us. We managed to negotiate with it. We managed to have arrangements which stabilized the nuclear arms race, minimized the prospects of war. We can do it with Iranians, absolutely, provided we don't listen to a device that is extreme and pathological.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you, what do you make of the new president of Iran, Mr. Rouhani, who came here obviously on some sort of, you know, wanted to put out some peace feelers, he and the president talked on the phone. What do you think about him? What is he up to?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, he clearly is an alternative choice, and I don't think he was the initial choice of the preponderant Ayatollah, but the Iranian public, particularly urban public, have sent everyone a message, they are tired of the confrontation. They are suffering from it. They would like it to be ended. They would like it to be ended reasonably and honorably. And we have to take into account the fact that this is a significant historical nation that lasted for 3,000 years, has a glorious history. It is not a crazy nation, it is not a suicidal nation, it is a very divided nation, because there is an urban, western type intelligentsia middle class in Iran and there is also the rural areas that are much more fundamentalist, sectarian, and anti- western.

SCHIEFFER: I am sure like me you saw the reports and when Rouhani returned to Tehran, there were actually some protests there, somebody threw a shoe at him, which I kind of think underlines what we sometimes forget, foreign leaders have to deal with the politics in their nation just like our leaders have to deal with the politics here.

BRZEZINSKI: Our leaders don't deal with shoes, thank god.

SCHIEFFER: Somebody threw one at George Bush, I guess.

BRZEZINSKI: Iran is a complicated society, but it is a society if you look at the stats, the statistics, socioeconomic ones, in which women play a significant role we don't know it because we have such a black and white view of Iran but they do. It is a very western type society when it comes to the big cities. It could be, so to speak, quote, unquote as European, if things changed, as Turkey.

SCHIEFFER: Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel has called Rouhani a wolf in sheep's clothing. How will this go down in Israel?

BRZEZINSKI: Look, Israel has its own Hamas, the Palestinians are divided and Hamas extremists, doesn't want to negotiate with anyone, wants to have total demands. In Israel, the situation is somewhat similar. There is an extreme right wing of which the prime minister is the leader, but it is na -- it is not a faction that is supported by the dominant majority of the Israeli people. The majority of the Israeli people are sensible, realistic, they know that peace is in Israel's interests. Mr. Netanyahu talks, if one were to take him seriously, as if he actually wanted a war, particularly between the United States and Iran. And I don't think most Israelis think it is a good idea and most American Jews don't think it's a good idea and I think most sensible people agree that eventually there will have to be an accommodation based on compromise and mutual respect.

SCHIEFFER: What advice would you give President Obama as -- because it does appear we are on the brink as it were of some sort of talks, some sort of negotiations with these two countries over the future of Iran's nuclear program. What are the most important things here?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think the president, first of all, has to explain to the country repeatedly, not just once, that things go wrong in the Middle East, it is going to be a massive globally significant crisis, probably the gravest since the Cuban crisis in the sense that these potential consequences will not be an atomic war but massive economic and political disruption in a very important part of the world. This is in our interests to avoid. What is part of the good news is that other major powers, while perhaps competing with us, as Russia, for example, which would like to see our influence diminish, realize that the consequences of such an upheaval would be worse for them. So we have a putative coalition for peace, mainly, with the western Europeans, of course, first of all, but secondly with the Russians up to a point, increasingly with the Chinese. And I think if we stick with it, we might be able to preserve some sort of stability in the region by accommodating the Iranians, by finding some compromise for Syria and for pushing the Israeli- Palestinian peace process forward. But all three things have to happen. So it is going to be a tough job. But if we persist and the president leads, if he is articulate and consequential, if he doesn't get swamped by advice from extremists, I think it can be done.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, it is a real pleasure to have you, doctor. And thank you so much. We hope you will come back again. And we will be back in one minute with our panel of analysis, so stay with us.

SCHIEFFER: And for a little analysis now we are back. And we want to welcome especially our colleague Clarissa Ward, who you usually see on this broadcast reporting from Syria or some other awful place as she makes a specialty of going to awful places and getting the news. David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post. Jerry Seib, the Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal. Also joined by our State Department correspondent Margaret Brennan who has managed to go to a few places lately. And our political director John Dickerson. The president said Friday that any path to a meaningful agreement with Iran is going to be difficult. And you just heard Dr. Brzezinski. Let me ask you first Clarissa and then you David, how difficult is this going to be? Is it actually doable?

CLARISSA WARD, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I think it is really too early to say. I mean, these are just the initial overtures here. You know, no doubt President Rouhani has come in on this charm offensive, people are very seemingly he enamored and hopeful. But I think sometimes there is a tendency to forget he is not actually the boss in Iran, the supreme leader is the boss, the same boss who was boss when President Ahmadinejad was around. So I think there is reason for cautious optimism at the risk of using a cliche, but it is way too early to say.

SCHIEFFER: David.

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: I think there is reason for optimism in the sense that you can see what the deal would be and the president was clear in stating that supreme leader in Iran has said he does not seek nuclear weapons so we want a verifiable, meaningful transparent way to establish that. I interviewed President Rouhani one on one on Wednesday, and I just would tell your viewers that he didn't come as a pitchman, he wasn't a lot of smiles, he was very somber, dressed in his clerical garb but a couple things struck me. He said I have authority from the Ayatollah to negotiate a deal, one. Two, I want to do it quickly. He said three months to me, three months, maybe six months. He wants to move fast. And the third thing, I asked him, did he think that the Revolutionary Guard, the security forces should play less of a role in Iranian life, which is in part what this is about. And he said yes, emphatically, that he wants less security type state. And I took all of those things as meaning he is serious about a deal.

SCHIEFFER: So Margaret, you have been traveling around with Secretary Kerry, what happens next?

MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is whirlwind diplomacy on many tracks and Iran and Syria overlap on many levels, but the most immediate date on the calendar is October 15th, that's when the Iranians say they will take these ideas they presented this past week and put them forward as a formal proposal. They want to move quickly. The Iranian foreign minister said that, the Iranian president has said that. And really U.S. officials know that there has been a deal put on the table to lift some sanctions and to specifically outlined steps Iran could take, that has been sitting there since February. Now we are seeing a response. U.S. negotiators say this week Iranians did something they have never done, they walked in with a time table, they walked in with ideas, so we will get to measure that October 15th in Geneva when they sit down at the negotiating table again.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask, before we get to other things I want to go back to Clarissa, what about the Syria resolution that was passed at the U.N.? That kind of has gotten swept away with the news from Iran that we are actually going to work with the Russians to try to get rid of these chemical weapons that Assad has, what did we agree to here?

WARD: Well, let me just say this. I think for me personally from what I have seen on the ground, the chemical weapons have always been something of a sideshow and a distraction and while we must applaud this resolution, I would ask you this, do you think that President Assad is quaking in his boots right now? I think he is sleeping better than he has slept in a long time before, because basically he knows that he can continue to kill his people with impunity, provided he uses conventional weapons, and the people who aren't sleeping well in their beds right now are the ordinary Syrian people, because the reality is that Syria is careening towards becoming a failed state and it's threatening to bring the entire region down with it. So once, you know, they sort of finish with the high fives in the White House, I think we still need to really concentrate on coming up with a real policy that prevents that from happening.

SCHIEFFER: Gerry?

SEIB: You know I think that is true. I think the interesting thing about the Syrian declaration was that it was pretty complete. They declared they have chemical weapons; they declared how many they have, they declared where they are, to some extent. Now I think they declared 30 chemical weapons sites to the U.N., the U.S. thinks it is closer to 50. So it is not complete, but in the road toward sort of Syria coming clean, it was a pretty good step but I do think there is a long way to go.

BRENNAN: I would add to that, of course, he is absolutely right that there is no enforceable part of this resolution, that threat of force was defanged. It was taken out, but what is implied here is that Russia won't let there be violations of this resolution. That is the wink and nod, that they will keep their client from tipping back into that arsenal or in overstepping the bounds, this quiet conversation has moved now towards talking about how to get Assad to step back, keep the Syrian state infrastructure in place and open up peace talks. It is incredibly optimistic, but that is where the diplomatic track is going. We have got everyone in the room on chemical weapons; let's see if we can get the peace talks.

SCHIEFFER: Let me go back to David for just one more pass at the Iranian thing. It seems to me, in listening to Dr. Brzezinski this morning, it seems to me that the Iranians have come to the conclusion that they want to move off this, that it is in their interests to do something.

IGNATIUS: I think you have to understand that the decisive factor here isn't President Rouhani or any of the people with him, it is the Iranian people. Fifty percent of the Iranian people in a six- candidate field voted for Rouhani because he was the candidate who said, our isolation, our defiance of the West must end. We must adopt new policies. The sanctions are hurting the Iranians, and, you know, we haven't talked about President Obama, let's say one word, President Obama from the day he got into the White House opened the door to Iran. He also put together a coalition to support very, very tough sanctions against Iran that has been pushing them through that door, and that is part of what we are seeing now, it is the Iranian people saying enough, let's negotiate.

SCHIEFFER: All right. John Dickerson, I have been saving you for the (inaudible)

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: Let's get back to Washington. Does anybody at this table and -- think we are not headed to a government shutdown? I have to say, I think we are.

JOHN DICKERSON, CBS NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, all signs are that we are, time is growing short and there is no negotiation going on, I mean, they are just trading insults with press releases. So now basically the Senate has heard what the House of Representatives have said and they are not even -- they are going to table this and then they are going to kick it back to the House. And so really the focus is on John Boehner. What Boehner has been doing is he has been having to do a lot of member maintenance. He has got this group of very conservative members who are -- whose constituents care more about cutting spending and are OK with shutting down the government if spending is not reduced, and Boehner doesn't have the old-fashioned tools. They don't care if they don't get committee assignments; they get lots of glory by standing firm for constituents who say this ObamaCare, which has been at the center of this debate, is an aberration; it's an intrusion into liberties. They really want their members to stand up like this. So Boehner has to manage those people and that is what he has been trying to do in this very messy process, and this House passed measure yesterday that asks for a delay of one year on ObamaCare, was, again, an effort to give those conservatives something, but John Boehner is going to have to make a choice. Does he want to keep going down that road or does he want to avoid a government shutdown? And he does have a kind of break-glass scenario and that is to allow a vote on the House of Representatives, of the Senate funding measure that passed on Friday, that would keep the government open until the 15th of November. He could just have a vote; now he will need Democrats to pass that vote and that is the trick. Republicans --

SCHIEFFER: Is that what is going to happen?

DICKERSON: Well, I think -- all indications are John Boehner does not want a government shutdown, if he doesn't, he can put this on the floor. It would pass with a majority, the government would be funded. He would get a lot of blowback but he also has to worry about this next fight in the middle of October, which is over the debt limit, for which he needs a unified caucus. So it is not clear but John Boehner does have an escape route here.

SCHIEFFER: Jerry Seib, I know at "The Wall Street Journal," there is a great wall between the people that work on the editorial page and the people that cover the news, but "The Journal" has been about as tough on these Republicans as anybody.

SEIB: And not just on our editorial page, a lot of mainstream Republicans, a lot of conservative Republicans. And I will tell you why -- and I talked to some of these people this week -- the question they keep bringing up is, what is the end game? We understand the frustration, we understand where the House members, we understand where Ted Cruz, we understand where they are all coming from, but what is the end game? What's the result? What happens when the shutdown occurs or what happens when the debt ceiling is hit? What is the way you bring this to a successful conclusion? And that is what conservatives who are nervous don't see right now. They don't understand what the final activist play is going to be.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: You wrote this morning, David, about how -- what a tough spot John Boehner is in.

IGNATIUS: Well, sadly, we are watching the collapse of John Boehner as the House Speaker, a complete inability to lead his Republican members towards some kind of clear legislative strategy. He doesn't want a government shutdown. He knows it's going to hurt the party. It is unpopular with the country, but he can't find a way to speak to his members. I think back, Bob, to when he appeared on your show in July and you were in a discussion with him and tried to get him to say on TV that he supported immigration reform, which he is well-known to support, and he wouldn't do it. He said, you know, I will just get myself in trouble if I say this or that. And it is not about me. And you saw a man who really was pulling back from what leadership is. You as much said that to him. I think that is part of the problem of where we are.

SCHIEFFER: It's almost as if he's become a spokesman for House Republicans rather than someone who's setting an agenda, and I don't say that in criticism, but just to state a fact. I think he would like to be much more. But nobody is in control of the House Republicans at this point, as far as I can tell.

DICKERSON: And we saw in the Senate, you had basically Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, running the Senate for Republicans, essentially, for a few days last week.

SCHIEFFER: And meeting with House Republicans and telling them why they should oppose Boehner.

DICKERSON: Right. A majority of House -- a majority Senate Republicans are very angry with Ted Cruz, but nevertheless he held the floor, he had the momentum, he had the conversation in his hands and then as you say, after doing his business in the Senate, he went over and told House conservatives, don't go along with what Boehner is doing, hold firm, because, again, ObamaCare, it is about to start on October 1st if we don't try and do something now. But the problem, back to Jerry's point is, the tactical strategy that Cruz and other conservatives have is not going to work; if the government shuts down there is no money; guess what keeps going, ObamaCare; guess -- the signing up continues. So as a tactical matter, Republicans against Cruz or on the other side of him are saying, this is crazy, you are creating an interparty fight, a civil war among Republicans when we should be aligned in fighting the president on these budget issues; you are wasting time for something in the end that we will not be able to do its stated purpose. And that time wasting is also part of what made some Republicans so upset this week.

SCHIEFFER: Clarissa, how is this viewed outside the United States? I want to get Margaret's thoughts on that as well.

WARD: Have you seen the movie "Groundhog Day," Bob? Because the rest of the world is watching this with a mixture of disbelief, but also real disappointment and impatience. I think we forget sometimes that the rest of the world looks to us to set an example, to be a role model, to demonstrate real leadership, and when we get bogged down in this pettiness and this dysfunction, I think it really questions people in the world's perception that we are able to continue that role.

BRENNAN: You know, it is interesting, as we talk about the Iranians managing domestic politics back home, Congress could really halt a lot of this foreign policy progress on the front of pushing more with sanctions on Iran. I mean, you could have the foreign policy progress also stopped by Congress. I was with Secretary Kerry in Paris just a few weeks ago as he was pushing for support for these airstrikes in Syria and people on the street in Paris were telling me about him not having the votes back home, knowing that Congress was in many ways in the driver's seat when it comes even to foreign policy. So there is a healthy skepticism about this, and people looking for more American leadership. So this diplomatic front, if we really do see progress, it could change perception, but there is a lot of skepticism about who is running policy.

SCHIEFFER: What about the economic impact, if we shut down the government, Gerry?

SEIB: Well, it's real. I mean, we saw that before. And you started to see at the end of last week, Wall Street paying attention. It hadn't, it has been very complacent. Investors have sort of thought this is Groundhog Day, we have seen this before. At the 11th hour it ends. But the stock market actually closed down last week for the first time since August. And there is a derivative hat you can buy to protect against default on government debt. You can buy a derivative to insure against anything. That went up six fold in the last week. I was in New York on Friday. And you started to hear a lot of questions, is this really going to happen? And I think before the last couple of days, people on Wall Street just assumed this was just another play in Washington. We have seen it before. We know how it ends and it ends short of disaster. I think you are going to see a very interesting 48 hours in the markets starting tomorrow.

SCHIEFFER: David, this is on the category of what is the tallest mountain in Kansas? But what is worse, the government defaulting on its debts or shutting down the government?

IGNATIUS: The conventional wisdom has become that a government shutdown we live with, that can go some weeks without serious consequences for the economy or our global position but defaulting on our debt, defaulting on the debt that is the world's yard sick for value, which the world makes its investments, would be disastrous. And I think that is what people are really afraid of when I listen to my friends on Wall Street, they -- there's a shudder, you are not really going to get to that, are you? And we talk a lot about deficits, but there is a leadership deficit that as all of us have said is so scary right now, and it is coming at the financial markets.

DICKERSON: And the GAO calculated the last time we had one of these debt limit moments that it cost $1.4 billion just to come up to the brink in extra borrowing costs for the United States. So there is a cost for even going up to the brink. But what makes the debt limit such a problem is the president said I am not going to negotiate, I am not going to pick up the phone. Republicans on the other hand think the debt limit or some do is their best moment of leverage to get a lot of the other things they want. I mean, they are far apart on the shutdown, but they are even further apart on the question of the debt limit, so farther apart and impacts much more grave.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I want to thank all of you for bringing us so much good news.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: Thank you all for being here and we will be back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Well, that is it for today. We hope you will join us next week for Face the Nation. Thank you for watching. We really appreciate it.