confusing because, remember, golden globes, have separate awards for dramas and musicals but really a crystal ball for oscars in many other ways. >> what about "les mis" as a film itself. how will that do? >> will have the second most nominations. the question is can it win, a very divisive film within the industry right now that has a lot of detractors. if you go to rotten tomatoes you'll notice a score of only around 50 or 60 which is surprising because those who love it like me really love it, and we think this is a masterpiece, the greatest movie musical since chicago which won best picture ten years ago. but it does have its detractors, so it's -- it probably doesn't have enough strength to win. the chief rival to "lincoln" for best picture is "argo" and that's the case of where you have ben affleck as the actor turned director. they love that. >> yeah. well, i've made a list as we've been talking of all the movies i need to catch up on, tom. i'll have a very busy weekend.

thank you very much, tom o'neil. thank you. "state of the union" with candy crowley starts right now. week two of a new year, and in the offing, a controversial cabinet nomination and a battle over money matters. today, is there an echo in here? >> one thing i will not compromise over is whether or not congress should pay the tab for a bill they have already racked up. >> we cannot agree to increase that borrowing limit without agreeing to reforms that lower the avalanche of spending. >> raising the debt ceiling and raising objections over former republican senator chuck hagel. the president's expected choice for defense secretary. our conversation with senators dick durbin and lindsey graham. then, learning the ropes with two freshmen, democratic senator democrat heidi heitkamp and republican senator richard hudson and plus can either party compromise and keep hard core

supporters on board, neera tannen, stephen moore of the "wall street journal" and jackie calmes of the "new york times" and our own dana bash. you knows what happens when sis fuss rolls that boulder to the top of the hill, it rolls back down, a piece of greek mythology that brings to us the reality of the u.s. congress. it got a deal that raises taxes on the upper brackets and prevents for now huge spending cuts. it's moved on to the issue of avoiding a u.s. default. >> the president needs to show up early this time. >> republicans say they are done raising taxes. they want the president to agree to spending cuts in exchange for raising the amount of money the u.s. treasury is allowed to borrow. the president wants the debt ceiling raised without debate. but be serious, this is washington. >> any future budget agreements must balance the need for thoughtful spending reductions, with revenue from the wealthiest

among us and closing wasteful tax loopholes. >> joining me now to tell us where this is all headed, the senate's number two democrat dick durbin of illinois. good morning, and happy new year, senator. thanks for joining us. can you get a deal on the debt ceiling? can you raise that debt ceiling without agreeing to some spending cuts? >> well, i think we're going to need both. what the president has said is we need some balance here. from this point forward -- >> excuse me what, the president said he's not going to deal. he's not going to negotiate. he just wants you to raise it. is that going to happen? >> let me add one thing. i think in the course of the state of the union address, and the president has already said, it we're going to be talking about further deficit reduction, but it has to be done in a balanced way. at the heart of this debt ceiling debates is whether or not we're going to continue to reduce the deficit. i think we need to do it in a thoughtful way. and the president said as long as it's balanced he's open to the conversation. >> okay. so i'm confused because i've heard him say multiple times i am not going to negotiate over

raising this debt ceiling. so are you going to negotiate? >> i can just tell you this. the debt ceiling is something that we should put behind us in a hurry. you know, it was john engler, republican governor, former republican governor of michigan now head of the business roundtable said we ought to project debt ceilings for the next four or five years and not fight over them every time they come up and newt gingrich said it was a debt loser for the republicans to choose this as an issue. i'm saying the president should not have one of these last-minute showdowns over the debt ceiling, but we should speak in honest and i think complete terms about dealing with this deficit. it truly is a challenge we haven't faced as much as we should. >> so taking the president out of it, do you think that you could agree to spending cuts, provided you were amenable to whatever the cuts were, in order to get the debt ceiling raised? >> i can tell you that sounds like a bargain, and it sounds

like a deadline that i don't want to see. what i'd rather see is a bipartisan approach starting soon, as soon as we return, between democrats, republicans and the house and the senate, talking about where we go, for example in, tax reform. there's money to be saved in tax reform. there's money to be saved in other areas. debby stab gnaw head of the senate ag committee found a way to save $23 billion in spending we don't need in the farm program and reduce the deficit. why don't the house take that up and pass it. that's a good move towards deficit reduction. >> let me ask you about money to be saved in tax reform, because if the government saves money in tax reform, that means somebody's taxes go up. do you think that taxes have been raised enough on the wealt wealthy? >> i can tell you that there are still deductions, credits, special treatments under the tax code which ought to be looked at very carefully. we forgo about $1.2 trillion a year in the tax code, money that

otherwise would go to the government, and when you look closely, some of those things are near and dear to us individually and to the economy. the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, but beyond that, trust me, there are plenty of things within that tax code, the loopholes where people can park their money in some island offshore and not pay taxes, these are things that need to be closed. we can do that and use the money to reduce the deficit. >> so there are other taxes that you believe that you can, however you want to put them, raise, retrieve, whatever, from the wealthy? >> absolutely. and i'll also tell you that i think we need to open our minds to our tax revenue. you know, we've had conversations about an infrastructure fund that will really start america building again, for the highways and airports and lochs and dams. >> already funded by gas taxes, right. you want to raise the federal gas tax? >> i believe we should have energy taxes that really fund

infrastructure investment. >> on who? >> that's going to create jobs in america. >> pardon me? >>. >> on who. who would -- whose taxes would be raised? >> well, there's a variety of ways to approach this, candy. i mean, we've talked about the gas tax. now is not the moment to raise it, but it really is something we should consider in the future, but there are other sources of energy taxes we ought to consider. i'll give you an example. the electric grid, power grid in america is ancient. and if we are going to expand it so that it can meet the needs of the 21st century, we need an investment. that means revenue coming in from that sector. i think they would be open to it if the investment went back into the infrastructure. >> let me ask you, when you're talking about these special loopholes and, et cetera, that you want to close in tax reform, there were some things in this fiscal cliff, last-minute deal, didn't even make the deadline, and it was all to save the middle class from not getting a tax high, and yet included, and this is just a partial list, included in this bill were tax breaks for puerto rican rum

producers, tax breaks for hollywood film-makers, tax deductions for nascar and tax credits for algae growers. so this is money coming out of the treasury, so why is all of that in this bill? isn't that's exactly the kind of thing you're going to run into in tax reform because something is sacred to algae growers, and somewhere somebody is making sure that they can -- it may be very important. i have no idea what the tax break is for algae growers, but nonetheless they were included in this bill. why? >> well, i haven't heard from the algae lobby, so i don't know what their position was on this bill, but i think you're describing that category of tax extenders. these were temporary tax breaks given long ago that have been renewed year after year. max baucus has been the first to say we need to sit down and look at these. am i for the wind energy tax credit? yes. i want to see us move towards a greener, cleaner form of energy in our future, but when you start ticking off the others, as

small as they may be, these things have really outlived their use fullness, and that can be part of tax reform as well. >> i suspect, senator, that it's possible you might not have had enough votes for this bill if some of these tax breaks weren't in there, that these were sort of payoffs. >> well, you're certainly not new to washington because you know how it works. you bring together a majority by putting something in the bill that is appealing to a member of congress. >> right. >> and who knows who represents the algae lobby on capitol hill, but they must have been very happy with the outcome. >> we'll try to find out. a final question for you, senator. president obama has said, look, i'm not going to do any kind of negotiating over this debt ceiling. you all have spent this money, and he points to congress so you have to raise this debt ceiling. he is, and we expect him to appoint senator chuck hagel whom you know, a republican senator, to be defense secretary. he's quite controversial amongst some of your democratic colleagues but especially among republicans. what do these two stances by the president, his decision to go

forward on a nomination that he knows will be controversial, and his decision not to deal with the all on the debt ceiling with the republicans. what does it tell you about president obama's tone in this second term? >> it tells me that he not only won the election but he wants to lead this country. you know, sitting back here and avoiding any confrontation and any controversy is going to make a weakened presidency. he needs to lead for the good of this nation, and we need to work together and find compromise and consensus in both political parties. chuck hagel was a republican senator from nebraska, a decorated veteran of the vietnam war, a person who has a resume that includes service on the foreign relations committee as well as the intelligence committee. yes, he is a serious candidate if the president chooses to name him, and when it comes to the debt ceiling, the more often we have confrontation, the more uncertainty there is in this economy. we need the certainty to move forward so that businesses will

invest and jobs can be created. >> senator dick durbin, it's always a pleasure to have you on. thanks for joining us. >> thanks, candy. up next, the hagel confirmation process could be anything but smooth, particularly within the republican party, and later the new arrivals to capitol hill have some big plans. >> it's up to us in this new class, the new congress, to figure out how to govern and get the things done that need to be done. have a cold, and i took nyquil, but i'm still "stubbed" up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't unstuff your nose. what? [ male announcer ] it doesn't have a decongestant. no way. [ male announcer ] sorry. alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms plus has a fast acting decongestant to relieve your stuffy nose. [ sighs ] thanks! [ male announcer ] you're welcome. that's the cold truth! [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus. ♪ oh what a relief it is! ♪ [ male announcer ] to learn more about the cold truth and save $1 visit alka-seltzer on facebook.

i just served my mother-in-law your chicken noodle soup but she loved it so much... i told her it was homemade. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

. president obama is expected to nominate chuck hagel, a former republican senator and vietnam vet, to be his next secretary of defense, a nice bipartisan gesture, right? you'd be wrong. a number of republicans and a sprinkling of democrats are underenthused. hagel has bucked his party on several issues, many of them dealing with war and keeping the peace. he opposed the 2007 bush announcement of a u.s. troop surge in iraq with gasp-inducing rhetoric. >> i think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. >> as senator haig el also voted

against sanctions on iran, a country dedicated to israel's extinction. instead he favored direct negotiations, viewpoints not at odds with but to the left of president obama. hagel also supported negotiations with hamas, a u.s.-designated terrorist group, and he said a lot of things criticized as insufficiently supportive of israel, a longtime and strong u.s. ally. in his 2008 book "the much too promised land," middle east analyst aaron david miller quoted hagel saying the jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here, but i'm a united states senator. i'm not an israeli senator. hagel supported the pentagon's old don't ask, don't tell policy governing gays in the military, and in 1998 said of president clinton's openly gay nominee to be ambassador of luxembourg, quote, i think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay -- openly air, gressively gay like mr. hormel -- to do an effective job. last month more than 14 years

later hagel apologized for those comments. mr. hormel said he was skeptical. if mr. hagel is nominated set your tivo for the hearings. senator lindsey graham is here next on hagel and the debt. [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso.

your soups are so awesomely delicious my husband and i can't stop eating 'em! what's...that... on your head? can curlers! tomato basil, potato with bacon... we've got a lot of empty cans. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i'm joined by republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina. senator, happy new year. thanks for being here. let me first talk about chuck hagel. you have said and predict that

had very few republicans would vote for him. i want to read you something from ambassador -- former ambassador ryan crocker. as you know, he's been ambassador to lebanon, kuwait, syria, pakistan, iraq, afghanistan. >> right. >> certainly qualified to talk about matters of foreign relations, and he says chuck hagel is a statesman, and america has few of them. he knows the leaders of the world and their issues. at a time when bipartisanship is hard to find in washington, he personifies it. above all, he has an unbending focus on u.s. national security, from his service in vietnam decades ago to his current position on the intelligence advisory council. mr. hagel would run the defense department. it would not run him. what is -- you know as a senator, you say lots of things that make people angry. >> yeah. >> you've done that yourself, and it -- it has a long record. you can go back. >> absolutely. >> but for now and for here why isn't chuck hagel the man? should the president nominate

him? >> well, it's a controversial choice. ryan crocker truly is a diplomat in the best sense of the word. i like chuck hagel. he served with distinguish in vietnam, an enlisted man, two purple hearts, but quite frankly chuck hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking i believe on most issues regarding foreign policy. i expect the president to nominate people different than i would think. i'm going to vote for senator kerry. i don't agree with him a lot, but i think he's very much in the mainstream of thought. chuck hagel, if confirmed to be secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of israel in our nation's history. not only has he said you should directly negotiate with iran, sanctions won't work, that israel must negotiate with hamas, an organization, terrorist group that lobs thousands of rockets into israel. he also was one of 12 senators who refused to sign a letter to the european union trying to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. he has long severed his ties with the republican party. this is an in your face

nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of israel. i don't know what his management experience is regarding the pentagon, little, if any, so i think it's an incredibly controversial choice, and it looks like the second term of president obama is going to be an in-your-face term. i'm not going to talk to you at all about the about ceiling and here's my secretary of defense nominee that will get a lot of bipartisan concern. >> well, let me ask you. he is the president. he did win. you say all the time. >> he won. >> elections have consequences. >> they do. >> one of the consequences is barring some horrible felony or something awful, the president ought to get the cabinet he wants. >> right. >> and he wants mr. hagel, and that's the kind of thing in the past you have said to fellow republicans, when you supported not so popular nominees from democratic presidents. >> and i will continue to support people chosen by president obama that i would not have chosen.

senator kerry has a lot of different views than i do. we're on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, but i respect him. i think he's a thoughtful man. i think he's in the mainstream. i'll have a hard time voting for anybody to be secretary of defense who believes that the surge was a foreign policy blunder. i'll have a hard time supporting anybody for secretary of defense who believes that the iranians are misunderstood, that we should just negotiate with them and not sanction them and to ask israel to negotiate with hamas who is trying to kill israeli children and not recognize that hezbollah is a terrorist organization and to be so wrong on afghanistan, it's probably going to be a bridge too far for me and a lot of others. this is a controversial pick. he is an antagonistic figure when it comes to the state of israel. it's a signal you're sending to iran at the worst possible time and to our allies. >> are you opposed enough to filibuster the nomination? >> the hearings will matter. he can set some of this

straight. maybe these are statements taken out of context, but when you put all the statements together, you have somebody who is very antagonistic towards the state of israel and the issues we jointly face. >> right. >> and there is no jewish lobby. there's a pro-israel lobby. his hearing will matter. there will be a lot of bipartisan concern about a lot of the issues i've just discussed, and this will be a controversial choice, and we'll see where the votes go. >> let me move you on to president karzai, as you know, is coming to town. the u.s. is now looking at a year where there will be significant drawdowns of u.s. troops in afghanistan. yet the latest assessment that they have is only one of 23 afghan brigades in the army can operate without u.s. ground or air support. >> right. >> what does that tell you about the speed with which you think the u.s. should withdraw the 66,000 remaining troops in afghanistan? how quickly should that be done? >> i think it should be done

based on the best military advice our commanders can give. >> apparently general allen wants them to stay until the end of next year, until fall, through the fighting season. >> i think that's a -- right. i think that's a good decision. come fall let's reassess and you can -- i want to withdraw our forces in a reasoned way, but the biggest strategic decision president obama will make in his presidency as a whole is the follow-on force in 2014. i would love to be able to support president obama's winding down afghanistan. i would love to be able to say you've done a good job here. don't withdraw the 68,000 too quick. leave them through next fall and withdraw in an organized manner but announce soon, mr. president, that we're not leaving afghanistan. we're going to have a robust military force left behind. >> what's robust. give me a number. >> to protect against al qaeda and the taliban. sore in the 60,000 range. the worst possible solution is have a small footprint left behind in afghanistan where they become sitting ducks and it will

lead to failure. we fought too long and too hard not to get this right. his decision about a post-2014 force will affect our national security interests for decades, and would i like to support the president in it's a robust number. >> let me move you on finally to what's going on on capitol hill on the domestic side, and that is this debt ceiling that will need to be raised sometime in february. where are you on the idea of a partial or a full government shutdown to stop the spending in order to get some cuts in exchange for republicans raising the debt ceiling. >> i believe we need to raise the debt ceiling, but if we don't raise it without a plan to get out of debt, all of us should be fired. every american owes $52,000 in terms of their share of the national debt. we've raised the debt ceiling last august. we went through $2.1 trillion in 17 months. the size of the debt 2013, 2037

will be twice the size of the economy. i want to raise the debt ceiling, but i will not do it without a plan to get out of debt. senator durbin has done some hard work with the republicans on entitlement recome form. if you raise the debt ceiling by a dollar, you should cut spending by a dollar. that's the way to go forward. we need a budget. our democratic friends haven't passed a budget in three years contrary to the law of the land and why raise money and spend it if you don't have a budget. a dollar for dollar offset and a budget two conditions to raising the debt ceiling. >> you won't raise it unless you've got cuts certain in spending. you will not raise the debt ceiling. >> i'm not going to borrow trillions more dollars without a plan to get out of debt, and one last thing about afghanistan. if we don't get this right, the place falls apart and all those who helped us get killed and the taliban come back and it becomes a safe haven for al qaeda, that's the worst possible signal to send to pakistan and iran. we fought too long and too hard. we can get this right. please, mr. president, listen to

your commanders. let's end the war well in afghanistan. let's do immigration reform in 2013. let's start saving social security and medicare from bankruptcy. i want you to have an historic presidency. i'm willing to work with you. it's going to take effort on your part as well as mine. >> and one last thing, since we're kind of going back a little. you sound very much as though you have made up your mind to vote no regardless of whether you would filibuster on senator hagel, correct? >> well, i think the hearings will matter, but i'm very inclined not to support him based on his antagonistic approach to israel and some of his decisions, and in terms of the debt ceiling debate, the rank and file in my conference have had it with last-minute deals where you can't read the bill before the ink gets dry. we've got to do better in the future than we've done in the past. this doing things at the last-minute behind closed doors must stop. >> senator libdsy graham, always so much to talk about, so much going on. we really thank you for your input today. appreciate t.

when we return, the beginning of a new congressional term. >> congratulations. you're now members of the 113th congress. oh! >> we talk to two of the newcomers next. -oh! -oh! oh! oh! ♪ what do you know? oh! ♪ bacon? -oh! -oh! oh! [ female announcer ] with 40 delicious progresso soups at 100 calories or less, there are plenty of reasons people are saying "progress-oh!" share your story for a chance to win a progress-oh! makeover in hollywood. go to facebook.com/progresso to enter. officemax can help you drive supply costs... down... ...and down. just use your maxperks card and get a case of x-9 paper for only 1-cent after maxperks rewards. find thousands of big deals now... ...at officemax. i need you.

i feel so alone. but you're not alone. i knew you'd come. like i could stay away. you know i can't do this without you. you'll never have to. you're always there for me. shh! i'll get you a rental car. i could also use an umbrella. fall in love with progressive's claims service. your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have six grams of sugars. with fifteen grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love.

so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. with me now are two freshman lawmakers. from north dakota, democratic senator heidi heitkamp and from north carolina republican congressman richard hudson.

i don't know if you all know it, but you have a lot of things in common, and i want to talk about that in terms of issues. but first i -- i want to know your first impressions. you've already had a vote on the house side on the sandy insurance, the superstorm, but what's your first impression? >> well, it's -- it's exciting. it's an exciting time. we have family and about 80 people from our district in town, but it's also a very sobering time to be coming to congress because there's so many challenges facing us, most particularly the spending issue. we've got a huge spending problem in this country, and so, you know, while i'm excited for this new opportunity, i'm hopeful that we can find ways to work together. i'm also, you know, coming into this with a little bit of anxiety about the challenges facing us. >> and you have been on capitol hill as a staffer for many years so it's not a totally strange place to you. it's a strange place, but not totally strange. senator, how have you found it? >> you know, it's an interesting place because i think there is a

sense from the outside that it's so, you know, there's so much conflict and people don't get along and you really don't sense that here, but i'm hoping that we can start this new congress with a new sense of cooperation, collaboration and getting the job done. i think one thing that has frustrated me is i have a much greater sense of urgency, it seems. i'm ready to get going and solve these problems and most country forward, so i'd like to see us move maybe a little faster than what we've been maybe moving so far. >> urgency and the senate not something i think of in the senate. good luck to you on that. let me talk about a couple of things you two have in common. one is you both actually support a constitutional balanced budget amendment, you with some of the exceptions on some things which drive up the debt, which are wars and some of the entitlement programs. where do you stand now as you look ahead to this debt ceiling

fight, both of you who believe that there ought to be a balanced budget amendment. you're a democrat. i can almost assure you that the democrats are at the beginning going to say we're not going to negotiate this. we're not going to talk about spending cuts. where do you come down on raising the debt ceiling and whether it should be connected to spending cuts? >> let's look at where we are right now. 40 cents of every dollar that we spend in this congress is borrowed. interest on the debt is our third largest expenditure. we have a debt that almost equals our gross domestic product. we can't sustain this. we have to look at reality. and why i came out for a balanced budget amendment is in 2000 we were on a path. we were on a path to balance the budget. the budget was balanced and we were on a path to retire our debt. guess what happened? it blew up. we saw committees. we saw bowles/simpson and none of it did it and i think we need the discipline of a constitutional amendment.

>> the debt ceiling is going to be the first thing you're going to deal with. >> yeah. >> and republicans, as i'm sure the congressman will tell you, are going to want at least one dollar in spending cuts for every dollar they raise that debt limit. is that something you can support? >> we cannot jeopardize the full faith and credit and credit rating of this country. >> so no? >> we have got to -- to take this in an incremental way and then recognize we need these spending cuts. we need to take a look at where we go on a path forward. a big part of balancing this budget is in fact getting people back to work. that balances us twice, so that's another big piece of it. that's not really getting talked about here. >> but you won't -- you don't want to link the two of them, the spending cuts and raising the debt ceiling. >> no. >> and yet we're hearing more and more republicans saying i'm not voting to raise the debt ceiling unless they do something about spending. is that your line in the sand, as you've talked about? >> absolutely, and i'm encouraged to hear the senator talk about the challenges we're facing and the fact that we need to be serious in addressing the

spending problem, and that tells me that hopefully there's some room for republicans and democrats to work on this, but the bottom line is we can't continue down the path we're on of borrowing money to pay our own debt with, and we've got to have serious spending cuts. we've got to have dollar for dollar within the same year as far as i'm concerned. >> would you vote to raise the debt ceiling unless -- if there were not spending cuts attached to it? >> absolutely not. >> so you see why it's not quite as easy as it all sounds. everybody comes with the same idea, right, and we have two opposite things. you want to just do it because of the full faith -- there's another issue that i want to talk about as well that i found that the two of you have in common. you're both strong supporters of gun rights. both of you live in areas where gun rights are a part of the culture, and there's a "washington post" story today talking about where the president's council at this moment headed by joe biden, possible gun control measures. they include universal background checks for anyone who buys a gun, a national database

for all gun sales and movement of guns, strengthening mental health checks at the gun purchase site, tougher penalties for carrying guns near schools and tougher penalties for giving guns to minors. could you go along with all of that? >> well, let me say it this way. north dakota has the highest rate of gun ownership in the country and the lowest rate of gun violence. >> so is that a no? >> i'm not going to comment on what's in a "washington post" story. i want to see the proposal but i'm a staunch supporter of the second amendment, but i also believe that we need to do things that will prevent what happened at sandy hook elementary. when i was -- >> gun control that you're talking about? >> i think you need to look at everything in the mix, but i'm not a big believer that this is a one-size-fits-all solution, and we absolutely need to have a balanced approach and then we need to live in reality. what can you actually get passed? what can you actually get done that's going to make schools and communities safer in america? and i don't think that that

proposal necessarily as you've described it to me fits the bill for me. >> congressman? can you find some agreement there? >> i can be clear. i'm not supporting any of the measures i'm reading about for two reasons. number one, we have a constitutional freedom, the right to keep and bear arms in this country that's critical, and i'm a strong defender of that. secondly, look at the effectiveness of the public policy we're talking about. these kind of measures were already in place in connecticut. connecticut has the third most stringent gun policies in the country. you know, the gun-free school zones didn't help in that case. you look at places like detroit, new york city, places have that the most stringent gun control laws in the country are some of the most violent gun crime areas. >> so let me ask you just as sort of a close-up question. when you saw the nra, both of you have very high marks from the nra for what you've done legislatively. you in north dakota and you in north carolina, and what did you

think of their reaction to what happened at sandy hook in connecticut which was to say we need to enhance school safety. we're willing to help wherever we can, but we're not interested in gun legislation. you supported that? >> i did, and i thought that wayne lapierre used good judgment to wait and not come out with a statement right away, and i agree that having security at schools is a good idea, but i don't necessarily think it's a federal government role. i think it's up to communities, states to decide and the schools in my districts, we already have resource officers in every school, so this is something that's being done on a local level in some places, and we ought to look at whether that's good policy everywhere, but, again, i don't think the federal government needs to be involved in funding it or telling states that they have to do it. >> senator, i've got to have it quickly. what did you think of the nra response? >> what i tell you is we ask teachers to be parents. we ask teachers to be babysitters and oh, by the way you might want to teach and now we're asking them to be security guards. that's not a formula for success. >> the nra said trained and

armed. the nra response, you were solid with? >> no, i think the nra missed the boat in understanding that there are concerns out there, that people need to have a reasoned discussion and by saying that there's absolutely nothing on the table that can be considered i think -- i think it was an overstep. >> senator heitkamp, senator hudson. so much issues. we hope you'll come back. thanks for joining us after your inaugural day. ahead a banner week for the vice president as he charms a deal out of the congress, hams it up during a swearing-in and sparks an online petition for his own reality show.

joining me around the table, jackie calls of the "new york times," neera tanden of the senator for american progress, stephen moore of the "wall street journal" and cnn's dana bash. i want to talk about reaction to the fiscal cliff deal and sort of sew that up. the first comes from the co-founder of the progressive change committee, and he said the president remains clueless about how to use leverage in a negotiation. republicans publicly admitted they lost the tax debate and would be forced to cave, yet the president just kept giving stuff away. and then we have this from the leader of the tea party express. >> we elected the house of representatives. we have the majority. the republicans have the majority there.

we still control part of the government, and the house controls the purse strings. >> basically saying, wait a minute, we have the house majority, you know, why didn't they stick up for, you know, spending cuts? so let's -- the left and the right seem to be not happy with this which almost makes it a perfect deal. >> right. >> but can you hold on to -- can either party hold on to their wings as we move forward to much worse confrontations i think? >> well, i think that's the big question. i mean, i think for all of the talk on the left, if there had been a comprehensive deal, and eventually there will have to be comprehensive if you count some of the prior incremental steps and look at it all in a big picture say like a simpson/bowles, i think the president can get the votes of democrats, enough democrats, for a plan that really does promise savings in the entitlement programs which, along with

revenues, you have to get in order to get the level -- >> savings meaning cuts which is hard forprogressives? >> crike the cpi, cost of living formula for social security, very controversial with the group you just quoted from the left, but i think democrats would go along in a balanced package. >> where do you think this goes? progressives, i mean, in the end, only three senators, democrats, voted against this deal, so clearly they are going along with the president. >> look, there was overwhelming democratic support for this, and that's because we were able -- the president was able to fulfill his promise of getting the rates to 39.6, and it has substantial revenues. i think the big issue going forward is whether it's going to be a balanced package between revenue and savings, and i would say, you know, something that gets lost in this debate is we've already had $1.7 trillion in savings. these additional revenues come together with that. that's over $2 trillion of deficit reduction that we've already had.

we need additional -- >> have we had the 1.7 trillion that was agreed to in the last deal? i mean, have they been enacted? >> phony cuts that they say will happen in the future. i can say this pretty definitively. i think. if democrats think they are going to get more taxes out of republicans they are living in lala land. that is the high ground for republicans. >> that's the argument you're going to take us over. the debt ceiling, going to play with the full faith and credit and that's hostage-taking. >> no question president obama won the first two innings of this game no, question. this was the president's deal, and he won the support of it probably because republicans didn't really have any other choice. taxes were going to go up on 100 million americans if they didn't get a deal, but i think now that the playing field tilts more to the republicans. the whole fight over the next six months to a year is going to be about spending. by the way, not just about the debt ceiling, and i think the republicans can play that card but they have another cut. they have the sequester. those are automatic cuts that are going to really hurt liberal

programs unless president obama -- the republicans have decided they are willing to take those cuts so this is -- i think the democrats are in a lot weaker position than they thought they would be. >> let me get dana in here before i have to take a break. in the end it does sound to me as though democrats understand they will have to agree to some plan to have spending cuts in order to get the debt ceiling raised. the president says he's not going to negotiate, but it sound like the democrats will. >> yes, they do understand that, but that is why literally the vote was not even taken yet in the house, and i had democrat after democrat coming up to me in the hallways of the capitol saying that this is going to be about spending in the future, that's why we're going to increase taxes. that's why you heard that from dick durbin, get it out there on the table and make sure it's not lost. >> saying we see taxes we want to raise. i need you all to stand by. we're going to take a quick break. up next, the life and times of vice president joe biden.

that's vice president joe biden during thursday's senate swear-ins on capitol hill. we are back with jackie calls, neera tanden, stephen moore and dana bash, happiest guy on the hill, right? i mean, first of all, he flew in there like superman. it was dark, and we were going to go over the fiscal cliff, and he and senator mcconnell saved the day. so it was a good week for him. >> gas a very good week for joe biden. also very interesting because you saw the -- that old triangulation happening a little bit that dick morris term from the '90s because along the way, as things were getting very intense and as harry reed was not as involved and it became a biden/mcdonnel deal, we as those covering, it really got a couple of sort of selective leaks about what they were talking about, not to pressure mcconnell but democrats trying to pressure biden. they were concerned, back to the earlier conversations, that biden was selling out democrats on some of the issues.

and only a handful of democrats, even though there's like 70 members of the progressive caucus, only a handful voted against it. that tells you something. >> was joe biden the canary in the cage going, hey, can you go fix this? >> i think this resurrects his hopes of being the democratic nominee in the next presidential campaign. i want to go back to the issues of taxes we've been covering. the fact that there are still really deep divisions between where -- it's almost like the democrats and republicans are almost talking past each other. democrats think they'll get more taxes and republicans are saying, no we're not going to raise taxes, again. this is the early stages of battles to come that really still haven't been resolved on the budget. >> republicans for three years have been talking about uncertainty. people at this table have been talking about uncertainty. no greater uncertainty to the community and wall street and

global competitiveness than having arguments about whether we're going to default or not. i think at the end of the day, just like mitch mcconnell picked up the bat phone to call joe biden, you know, in order because he didn't want to go over the fiscal cliff. those issues are dwarfed by what would happen with the default. already newt gingrich is saying this is a -- >> hey, we have to do something. we can't keep saying, we'll keep extending. republicans are going to give -- >> we should have a negotiation. we had $2 trillion. >> unlimited credit card? >> you should pay your bills. >> unlimited credit card. >> what i would say to republicans is that we have dealt with issues of default and all these issues are raising the debt limit without actually threatening a default for decades. >> this is called leverage. if you were the minority party. >> there's no default. >> this is an unprecedented act

and republicans should not threaten the economy and just to get their way. there should be a negotiation. >> it is unsettling, you would agree. a way they can pay their bills. they will manipulate it for two months. it does shake up the economy and it has businesses not wanting to hire because they're not sure what is going to happen. where does this end? i feel like every month we're going to do this. >> well, we got a taste of this in july and august of 2011, where they did make a deal at the last minute. they averted default, but the economy was significantly damaged by it. the credit rating was downgraded by standard & poor's. others have -- rating firms have had warned that they will downgrade, as well, if it isn't fixed. we already have an unlimited credit card in effect because, for all this talk about going to

default, we're either, "a" not going to do it. come in like 2011. or, "b," if we do it, such a crisis that somehow we'll step in and -- >> so we should negotiate now and we should negotiate around the sequester and not negotiate around on the debt limit. we should have a negotiation -- >> that's the best calling card at this point that republicans had. the president had the threat of, go ahead, republicans, raise the rates on everybody and that was his leverage. the republicans' leverage now is you want a debt ceiling, the question is whether they'll stick with it. >> you talk to john boehner this week. i talked to lots of republicans who tell me in private, even members of the house republican leadership they realize that you have to really go to the brink and be willing to follow through on -- >> don't threaten unless you can follow it. >> and there's certainly a lot of members of the republican caucus who want to do that, but not the leadership.

>> shooting the hostage is actually destroying our economy. >> i got to go, thank you, all, very much. we can do this, again, next week, i'll bet. thank you so much. up next, hearing from the new voices on capitol hill who have already made their presence known. -oh! -oh! oh! oh! ♪ what do you know? oh! ♪ bacon? -oh! -oh! oh! [ female announcer ] with 40 delicious progresso soups at 100 calories or less, there are plenty of reasons people are saying "progress-oh!" share your story for a chance to win a progress-oh! makeover in hollywood. go to facebook.com/progresso to enter.

try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis.

finally today for 97 members of the 113th congress, it was day one.

the most diverse congress in u.s. history was sworn in this week and for that moment, partisanship gave way to predictably lofty terms for the new goal. >> put simply, not to be something, but to do something. >> like the old bulls that came before them, the new freshman want to change washington. >> hi, i'm congressman -- >> i'm kirsten congresswoman for arizona's ninth district. >> the american public doesn't care about republican or democrat, they want solutions. >> it's up to us in the new class, the new congress to figure out how to govern and get the things done that need to be done. >> when the government works right and not heavy handed and doesn't go too far, that it create great opportunities in people's lives. >> now we have the great opportunity and the responsibility to serve as their voice. >> it's about making sure that we are protecting medicare and social security. >> making sure we will put