check out our podcast, search reliable sources in the itunes store. we are back next sunday morning 11:00 a.m. eastern for another critical look at the media. state of the union with candy crowley begins now. >> ready, aim but so far no fire. today, the u.s. warns of consequences if north korea turns its talk in to action. >> and kim jong-un needs to understand, as i think he probably does, what the outcome of the conflict would be. >> the threat from pyongyang, a show of force or a sideshow farce? arizona senator john mccain gives us his take. and what next conciliation, negotiation or retaliation? we will ask our experts. joe manchin of west virginia, democrat, republican pat toomey of pennsylvania on the deal that nobody loves but enough people might embrace and one promising

new face is all in. florida's marco rubio on whether he can coax fellow conservatives in to supporting immigration reform. i'm candy crowley. and this is state of union. secretary kerry met with japanese leaders and urged north korea to bring their nuclear rhetoric to a peaceful end. >> hopefully north korea will hear our words and recognize that for the future of its people and for the future stability in the region as well as on the peninsula itself there is a clear course of action that they are invited to take. >> joining me now arizona senator john mccain. senator, when you put this in context of the history of north korea with the grandfather kim jong-un, with the father of kim jong-un, can you tell me whether this is more serious, less serious? i mean, how do we view this? >> i think it's probably more serious because of their

increased capability. but you're right, this has been going on for decades. a cycle of confrontation, negotiation, aid and the false hope that somehow the north koreans would give up their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. without that, north korea is totally irrelevant. i mean, both republican and democrat administrations have fallen prey to this, well, if we give them food, if we give them oil, if we give them money, then they will come around. and they take our money and run. it was the bush administration that they lifted sanctions, freed up a bank account that they had. always we have been in the belief that somehow we can entice them into giving up this capability. they are not. they are not. but can i just say i don't think they're going to do anything more than their predecessors did, but they have greater capability.

and they don't think like us. and they do have the ability to set seoul on fire. >> yes, they do. and we've seen them actually attack seoul in the last two, three years. not only inflict damage but kill south korean soldiers. >> they've got artillery along the dmc in caves that would be capable -- before we take them out, would be capable of shelling a city of millions of people. this is dangerous. anybody who's read barbara tukt tuchman's "guns of august" know conflicts started by accident of es kalatory measures do not believe this young man thinks like we do. he doesn't. >> one of the things that you have said is if he launches a missile, i don't care if it's a test or aimed at someone, we should take it out. i wanted to play you something -- this comes from a man named david tang at the

university of california in the korean studies institute. something he had to say. >> one of the questions is, if we try and shoot it down and we miss, it looks a lot worse than if we don't try at all. many of our missile systems haven't been tested in real world situations. and i'm not sure that we want to use this one as the first time. but that's a decision to be made by the military. >> so that is a danger, they fire something and we miss it. >> actually, i think the decision is made by the president. but look, if we showed kim jong-un that he really doesn't have the ability to launch a missile that would strike guam or the united states of america, i think let's do something different than what we've been doing in the past but also the most important and key element of all this is china. china is the only country that can effect north korean behavior. they can shut down in a sport period of time their economy. and remember this is a country that has 200,000 people where people are being tortured and the worst regime in history, where is our advocacy for human rights?

>> in north korea? >> north korea. >> but there is some indication is there not. that china can't be that helpful? they said to north korea last year, do not shoot up a missile. and what did north korea do? they shot up a missile. >> and what did china do in response? nothing. so what china needs to do is start squeezing their economy. without china, their economy would collapse in a relatively short period of time. and china has got to start stepping up whether it be on cyber security or we've identified a building in beijing where these attacks come from or whether it be in the south china sea where they are confrontational or whether it be in the united nations where they, along with russia. veto efforts to reign-in bashar al assad. it's time now for china to step up. >> let me ask you there was quite the to-do this week when at least a portion of what we thought was -- which we know was a defense intelligence

assessment. congressman doug lambeau in colorado read it. he thought it was unclassified, it was, but apparently was not supposed to have been. makes you a little worried. and part of this was -- part of the quote was the dia assesses with moderate confidence, the north, meaning north korea, currently has weapons capable of delivering by ballistic missiles, however the reliability will be low. and for the next two days everyone said, oh, no, we don't actually think that. can you interpret this for me? does north korea have the wherewithal to put a small nuclear device on top of a missile? >> i don't think we know. there's been other miscalculations by our intelligence agency but have no doubt they're on the path to achieving that capability. look what they've achieved over the last 10, 15 years and also exported including to countries like iran. so they are a danger. i think it's a matter of time before they have that capability.

whether they do right now, it's not clear. >> doesn't sound like anybody actually knows for sure. let me move you to guns, the other big issue. are you on board with toomey, manchin, which expands to gun background checks to gun shows but allows personal and private sales to a friend, to a relative and also handing a gun to a relative. are you on board with that? can you go with that? >> i'm favorably disposed. first i would like to thank pat and joe for their work together. we need to do a lot more of that. and i'm very favorably disposed towards that. 80% of the american people want to see a better background check procedure. the internet aspect of it, which i need more explanations -- greater explanation of, but look i appreciate their work. and the american people want to do what we can to prevent these tragedies. and there's a lot more that needs to be done particularly in the area of mental health. >> and indeed it does look as though there will be some mental

health amendment to this. so preliminary thumbs up for this, it's something you could vote for, you think? >> i've got to give them credit. and i want to look at it, but i'm very favorably disposed. >> okay. finally, big immigration rollout. you've been working on this with your other seven colleagues for the gang of eight. do you have any idea how the white house will respond to this? and have you talked to your conservative colleagues? >> a lot of my conservative colleagues have significant questions, and they're legitimate. this is a start of a process. this is a vehicle that requires hearings, requires input. and we welcome all of that. i think my other seven colleagues have done a great job. i am guardedly optimistic that we will see finally the end of this long, long trek that a lot of us have been on for many years. >> indeed, senator john mccain, so many issues, never enough time. thank you. >> thank you, candy.

when we return, so far it is all quiet on the korean front. why? we will ask two experts next.

thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.

there's a reason no one says "easy like monday morning." sundays are the warrior's day to unplug and recharge. what if this feeling could last all week? with centurylink as your trusted partner, it can. our visionary cloud infrastructure and global broadband network free you to focus on what matters. with custom communications solutions and dedicated support, your business can shine all week long.

director michael hayden and former national security director for asian affairs victor chau. thank you for bringing your expertise to this table. we have been spending weeks saying maybe they are going to fire a missile or nuclear weapons and nothing's happened. why is that? >> i think, first of all, everybody's waiting for them to do something. perhaps on this holiday, the 101st birthday of the grandfather of the current leader. part of it is, i think, is a waiting game. the longer they can string this

out, the more they get us to pay attention and they feel it gives them more leverage. they play a game and feel they are winning right now. >> you get the feeling like they are yanking the world's chain. like this is a scary game. >> i don't want to down play the real dangers here, candy, but a lot of this is crisis theater. very predictable. we have seen the pattern in the past. north korean security policy looks like it has been drawn from a shampoo bolt, provoke, accept concessions, repeat. except this time you have a very young leader and the angle at which he's provoking, the kinds of weapons that he's suggesting he might use, that's a little different than in the past. so this makes it a little more worrisome. >> but it also says to me that perhaps what we have been doing in the past hasn't worked? >> i understand why we made these discredit decisions every

time we made these. >> to reward it. >> to make the crisis go away to reduce the probability of war and tactically they are probability correct decisions. the strategic affect of those decisions, candy, has been to teach the north koreans they can provoke without consequences and i think that has gotten us to a very bad place. >> what do they want? is it that they want humanitarian aid? is it they want world recognition? what is the after? >> i think they want all of those things. he wants food. he wants energy. he wants political recognition. he wants a peace treaty with the united states. the core dilemma is he wants all of those things, but he wants them on his own terms and that is acceptance of a nuclear weapons state n. 25 years of u.s. diplomacy has been predicated on the idea that you would trade these benefits in return for their deregularization and the the improvement of the human rights in the country but they want

their cake and eat it, too. >> what does it take to stop the cycle? >> my suggestion is if there is a genuine provocation, not the theater we are seeing now. perhaps not even launches of missiles that simply land in the wide-open ocean but a genuine provocation, i think now is the time that there be a response and it doesn't necessarily need to be proportional or have to be confined to the original provocation. >> so a genuine response, for instance, in recent history they have managed to hit a south korean boat and sink it. there are also some land attacks that killed some people, some north korean soldiers. so is that a provocation? >> oh, yes. anything like that happens now, i do think the political circumstances, particularly in south korea, are such that the daughter of park geun-hye will respond and i think she will respond with a military

option. >> with the united states? >> i don't know that. now you are asking me, i'm out of government. i'm not taking part in the meetings or in the situation room like victor and i used to do. but if i were, my counsel at this point would be to cooperate with the south koreans to at least meter their response so that it isn't excessive. but it does get the point across. candy, i know it is dangerous and puts us in to a place where their reaction then is somewhat unpredictable but i return to my original point. we have taught them they can provoke without danger, without response and now we see the results of that. >> dr. cha, talk to me about china and what we know. from what i have read, they have had little effect on north korea's behavior. they asked them not do a missile test and we do not know the new president in china actually even knows the north korean president. how much affect can they have? >> the idea of china playing a

big role has always been based on the idea that they are the ones giving the aid and assistance to north korea right now. nobody else in the world is. we hope the north koreans will do something horrible enough that it will cross the chinese red line. mike and i were in government when north korea did the first nuclear test in 2006 and we thought at that point the chinese had it with north korea. they stay angry two or three weeks and go back to the same old stuff. kerry's visit there and the proclamations how we are in tight with the chinese, i'd rather not see the big statements and see real, deep, strategic cooperations than big statements and to have tactical con strive cooperation. that is what we have had in the past. as mike said that's why we end up in the same cycle. china, if they want to break out of the cycle, really has to clamp down on north korea and work with the united states and south korea on a long-term plan for the peninsula. >> i want to read you something that came out of a dia

assessment, whether it should or should not have been declassified it was. it came from congressman lam born in a hearing this week and he read from this during a house intelligence committee hearing. dia, defense intelligence agency assesses with moderate confidence the north has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles. however the reliability will be low. can you translate what that means. no then the next two days no we don't actually think that. do they or don't they? >> they are assessments. assessments are what you do when you don't know. that's the first important fact we all have to be aware of. dia, when judging a potential opponent's capability tends to be foreed ward leaning, a bit alarmist because their clientele, the people to whom they are reporting is the american department of defense. they have to respond to those

kinds of dangers. so they want dia to have a relatively low threshold when it comes to warning about things like this. i think director clapper made it clear that did not represent a community view. that dia was a bit of an out liar. i would not agree with the estimate but dia did the right thing. that's their role inside of the american intelligence community. >> the british are coming role, alarmist role. although it turned out to be true, the british were coming. in my last minute that i have here, i want to get you both on what you think happens next. >> i think we will see missile shots in the coming days a and weeks and after that they will try to test the new south korean president. that is something they have done since '92. within a few weeks of the new president they test with a new provocation. >> do you agree or disagree. >> i agree.

>> thank you for being here. >> thank you. the emotional toll of the gun debate. skbr when we return, the plan to broker a gun deal. and later the face of immigration legislation for republicans and a potential 2016 candidate. marco rub bow looks at the bill's future and his own. angers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

[ male announcer ] purpose elevates what we do.

raises it to a more meaningful place. makes us live what we do, love what we do and fills our work with rewarding possibility. aarp connects you to a community of experienced workers and has tools to help you find what you're good at. an ally for real possibilities. aarp. go to aarp.org/possibilities.

my interview with marco rubio is coming up. you all have put together this bill, which includes among other things a way to expand background checks to gun shows. and do you have the votes? >> well, we expect a vote this week. it's not certain as to exactly when. i think wednesday's probably the most likely day for a vote for the manchin/toomey, i think it's an open question as to whether or not we have the votes. i think it will be close. >> we're asking, candy, just for

our colleagues to read it. we've sent it to all of them. we've give an outline of it, but it's a bill that basically looks at how we treat our veterans and make sure they're treated the way they should be treated with respect and dignity. how we basically look at violence and commission on mass violence, expertise in mental illness and why we don't do more. this bill basically if you're a criminal and if you've been mentally adjudicated, you might not like it. that's all we're saying. at gun shows, internet sales, commercial transactions is that you should not be able to buy a gun if you've been one of those two categories. >> as both of you know as folks who have had strong backing by the national rifle association in the past, there is still huge resistance in the sense that people think, oh, that you expand background checks, the next thing you know they're going to come back and do this in the federal registry which is explicitly banned under your bill, but there's just this

feeling that the federal government is -- this is just the tip of the iceberg. i wanted to read you something that senator chris murphy said, this was quoted in the "new york times" column in which he said "you are not going to disenfranchise the nra overnight. i think ultimately we will get the assault weapons ban because i don't think this is the last time a man will walk into a crowded place with an ar-15." that kind of -- go ahead. >> first of all, let me be very clear, senator manchin and i are not interested and not willing to support infringing the legitimate rights of law-abiding citizens. this is about whether or not it's reasonable to try to make it more difficult for dangerous people for whom it's already illegal for them to have weapons to obtain them. and i think that's a very reasonable thing. now, there are some people that do want to infringe on second amendment rights. i won't be part of that. but i will be part of trying to make sure criminals and dangerously mentally ill people have a harder time getting guns. >> you understand the fear that's out there. >> sure. it's the unknown.

and the fact there's lack of trust. pat and i both come from a gun culture. both nra, both gun people yourselves who own and hunt and go out in the woods and enjoy it all. if you're a law-abiding gun owner, you're going to like this bill. we've clarified a lot of things. you know when people look at you, candy, and they think why do you own a gun? like something's wrong with you. this basically puts it in the proper context people have been trying to do for years. all we're asking for is for them to read it. >> have the events over the past three or four months while congress and the president and everyone has sort of wrestled with what to do, has it changed your mind about the national rifle association? we had governor malloy on last week and he called wayne lapierre a clown, a circus clown. do you all feel differently about the nra and its tactics now than you did prior to all of this? >> what we're seeing is is same as we're seeing in the political arena whether you're a democrat or republican, whether you're

elected or running for an office, they're getting caught by different other extreme groups, really extreme groups putting out falsehood and just outright lies. they're not even addressed in this bill. we have put so much protection in this bill. and we're asking people to read it. it's a shame that a nationally organization such as nra -- and we've talked to them, they're my friends. i've worked with them. my door's still open. if they're not going to be for the bill, we just agree to disagree. but there's things in this piece of legislation that they have been working for many, many years to get and it's here. >> have you changed your mind about the nra and its tactics? >> no. i think this debate in some ways is underscoring just to which extent there is a political polarization and the acrimony that's gotten in to politics is unfortunate. but i believe strongly as senator manchin did, if people

would read the bill and it's been posted online, it will have been available for a week, i think they'll see it's a very reasonable common sense measure to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. >> let me also talk to you a little bit about the specifics of one thing. and it does allow the transfer of a gun within a family. >> right. >> it does allow gun sales within a family. but there's also something that says private sales. so if i own a shotgun and i want to sell it, my neighbor comes to me and says, oh, i know a guy that's looking for a shotgun. can i sell that shotgun to the neighbor's friend without a background check under your bill? >> all private transactions are exempted. >> that's a private transaction? >> that's a private transaction. >> if a commercial sale or commercial establishment such as a gun show, if you're going to a gun show, there should be a background check. current law is if you go to a gun store, you have to have a background check and the gun store keeps it.

if you go to a gun show today and you're a licensed dealer, you do the same thing. we're treating everybody the same. if you buy on-line. if you buy on-line and i buy a gun in pennsylvania and i'm in west virginia -- >> but thurnd bill, i could sell my shotgun to anyone i wanted. >> private transactions, law-abiding citizens you know, absolutely. >> okay. the other thing is you all have -- do you still even though you have this bill out there understand when folks look at this and say, no, we've got to control those private sales as well because if you don't know the background of the guy you're selling to. >> well, i understand, but i just disagree. i think we need to strike a balance here. strike a reasonable balance that is not too onerous. the vast majority of sales are commercial in nature and they're happening either with dealers or at gun shows. those would be captured. subject to a background check,

which 94% of which are completed in three minutes. it's really very reasonable. and it would capture a vast majority of transactions. >> i want to move to the politics of this. some of which actually were touched upon last night in a "saturday night live" skit. i don't know if you all have been able to see it, but i wanted to play a bit of it. >> these men wish everything for this bill. i mean, senator manchin represents west virginia and he's proposing gun reform? he's going to lose his job. and senator toomey, this man is a republican who is willing to make just the slightest compromise on gun control. he's going to lose his job too. >> either one of you worried about any kind of challenge primary or general? >> let me just say i know pat and i have talked, we came here to do something. we came here to make a difference. if you would have met with the families, the strongest people i've ever met with, the families of the newtown victims, they never asked for anybody to take their guns away. they never asked to repeal the second amendment. they said we're gun owners and

we respect and honor all that. we know, and they'll even say, we know that this bill that you're working on will not have saved our children. we know that. but it might save somebody else's child. i mean, you talk about -- if we just had half the courage they had, candy, just half the courage. yes, i came to do something and i want to do something. >> in 1999, i supported expanding background checks. i just think it makes common sense. and i'll just let the political chips fall the way they fall. >> senator pat toomey from pennsylvania, senator joe manchin from west virginia, thank you both for being here today. >> thanks for having us. >> when we return, immigration advocates push for a bill the gang of eight had won. can they deliver. marco rubio on the bill's chances and his own prospects for 2016. that's next. i have very well fitting dentures. i like to eat a lot of fruits. love them all. the seal i get with the super poligrip free keeps the seeds from getting up underneath. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles. super poligrip is zinc free. with just a few dabs,

it's clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. a lot of things going on in my life and the last thing i want to be thinking about is my dentures. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip. is my dentures. and you wouldn't have it any other way.e. but your erectile dysfunction - you know, that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph,

like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

joining me now from miami, florida senator marco rubio. senator, thank you for joining us. let me ask you a broad question first. >> good morning. >> as you know, the 1986 immigration reform has been criticized in hindsight as something that only encouraged

undocumented workers to come into the u.s. we went from some 3 million undocumented workers in the reagan era, they had immigration reform, now we're dealing with 11 million. what in this bill is going to ensure that that doesn't happen again? >> well, three things. first of all, universal e-verify system which means you won't be able to find a job in the united states if you can't pass that check. secondly an entry exit position. 40% of our immigration are people that enter legally and overstay their visas. we only track when people come in, we don't track when they leave. and third is real border security including fencing. all these three things are going to happen because they are triggers, they are triggers for the green card process that we've described or laying out in our proposal. that's the incentive to ensure they happen. in essence, for those undocumented in this country, not only they'll have to wait more than ten years, they will have to wait until those three things are fully implemented. if they are not fully implemented, there will be no

green cards awarded. and we think that will be an incentive. and an immigration system that works. we don't have a legal way for people to come here for example temporarily to work on a farm. we're going to have that now. so people aren't going to have to come illegally. it's going to be cheaper and easier to come legally. so i think all these things working together -- none by themselves will do the trick but all working together will ensure we never have this problem again. >> my first question on all of that is the president has said in the past that he didn't want the fate of an undocumented worker to be tied to something beyond their control which would be getting the e-verify system to work, checking on courts and et cetera to find out who's overstayed their visa and border security. do you know that the white house approves of the link that you have here? >> well, they don't. the problem is we have a bipartisan disagreement because i think the bipartisan group of senators gree that should be a trigger and the president disagrees and hopefully we can pass a bill that's in there and

if we do he'll have a decision to make about this. we've learned from experience, if we don't do enforcement, if enforcement is not a part of this and don't modernize legal immigration, if we don't do all these things, we'll be back here in ten years having the conversation all over again. and that would be the worst possible outcome. >> so once you get the e-verify system up and working for all businesses, once you have sort of quantifiable amounts that you can say, yes, the border is secure either because there's this much fence or the enforcement shows that it's up or down or whatever measures you set. how long is that going to take? and how much money is that going to cost? >> well, first of all it will be over ten years because obviously the process doesn't begin immediately. in fact, people can't even start applying for their temporary status until the border plans have been created and funded and begin to implement them.

>> right. how long does that take? that's what i mean. >> they have six months to create -- >> how long getting everything secure? >> obviously that whole ten-year period is something we're looking at. but here's what happens, if the department of homeland security does not secure the border, does not meet that met rix of 100% awareness and 90% apprehension in the first ten years, then it goes to an issue to a commission made up of people that have to live and deal with the border and they will take care of that problem and funded to ensure that happens. if you are legally in the u.s. and you can't apply for this until the plans are in place and they begin to implement them and then you're going to have to pay a fine, an application fee, you're going to have to pass a background check and assuming all of that happens, the only thing you get is a work permit. you don't qualify for any federal benefits including obama care and you're going to have to prove you can sustain and support yourself. you can't be a public charge. you're going to have to be in the system at least ten years plus all these enforcement things happen before we give you access to apply for the legal immigration system.

in essence we're not awarding anybody anything. all we're doing is giving people the opportunity to eventually earn access to our new, improved and modernized legal immigration system. >> so what you're talking about is a ten to 13-year minimum before you can even get a green card. so my question is let me take it from the other side, why bother? if you are in the united states undocumented but you have been able to somehow secure a social security number, you're somehow working, why would you step forward knowing that the next step is unknown when you can take it, when life is okay right now? >> well, life is not okay right now for them because they're living in the shadows. they have to hide. they have to lie. they're worried about getting pulled over and deported because they don't have a driver's license. i mean, you're going to have a legal status to work in the u.s. to pay your taxes and to travel. >> but they can't get that provisional for a while, right? how long before you can get a provisional work visa? >> well, the process doesn't

begin until the plans are in place and we give the department of homeland security a number of months to come up with that plan. at the end of the day people are going to get the legalization if they qualify for it. some people will not qualify for it. but that's why e-verify is so important. you won't be able to find a job. employers are going to now have available to them a legal workforce. there will be no incentive and strong disincentive for them to ignore e-verify and hire someone undocumented. you won't be able to find work in the u.s. if you are not legally here. that's why that e-verify part of it is so important. >> let me read something one of your colleagues mike lee said about immigration and about his discussions with you. what i told marco he said was if we can proceed with this in segments, it would be a lot easier to get it passed and it would be a lot easier for people like me, people in both houses in both parties to vote for it. i see no reason why you have to lump everything in one 1,500-page bill and say it's all or nothing. that's from an interview that senator lee did with politico. is it all or nothing?

>> no. first of all, that's my preference too is to have done that in individual bills. i've argued that in the past. that's not the direction the senate was headed. so i made a decision to try to influence the direction we were headed. but here's what i'm pleased about. even though it's one bill, it is divided up into segments just like senator lee has advocated for and so have i. the fact of the matter is through our negotiations we've been able to keep these segments separate from each other. in essence we haven't had to trade less border security in exchange for a modernized system. we haven't had to make the process. tradeoffs. hopefully this doesn't happen during the process. this is going to be a lengthy process. if things go according to plan, people are going to have three to four weeks to read this bill and analyze it before the first markup session, the first amendment process begins at the committee level. we're looking forward to see what suggestions our colleague haves to make the product better. but so far what's been promising about the effort is though it's one bill, it's one bill divided up into pieces, the modernization piece, enforcement and what to do with those

undocumented. we've been able to deal with each on their own merits not having to make trades in order to get something good in exchange for four things that are bad. as long as the product stays that way, it will be defensible. unfortunately, if it goes in the opposite direction, it will be very difficult to support it. >> so have you agreed with your seven colleagues that helped put this bill together that you will stick together when amendments come up that, i guess, the majority of you deem to upset the balance? >> well, first of all, i have principles on immigration reform. and as long as the bill reflects those principles, i'm going to be supportive of it. if it abandons those principles, obviously i can't. >> have you agreed to stick with your colleagues on that? >> no. i think we've all agreed to protect the principles of bill, but we haven't agreed to ban together to keep anyone from amending it. there are 92 other senators who have their own ideas about immigration reform who i think frankly can help make this bill better.

92 minds with additional thoughts of how to improve this thing. there will also be amendments . we know how politics are played. there will be amendments that are designed to poison pills to doom the bill. i'll oppose those if i know that's what they're for. and i'll look forward to justifying in essence there are people with ideas that used to be my original position on some of these issues and i'm talking hypertechnical issues and i'll tell them the thought process i went through that led them to the point we're at right now. and i think i'll be able to justify every single virtual aspect of this bill. >> more with marco rubio when we return on immigration, guns and a potential run in 2016. >> i'm working on something maybe we'll announce later today. ♪ to more efficient pick-ups. ♪ wireless is limitless. ♪ from tracking the bus.

♪ to tracking field conditions. ♪ wireless is limitless. ♪ welcnew york state, where cutting taxes for families and businesses is our business. we've reduced taxes and lowered costs to save businesses more than two billion dollars to grow jobs, cut middle class income taxes to the lowest rate in sixty years, and we're creating tax free zones for business startups. the new new york is working

creating tens of thousands of new businesses, and we're just getting started. to grow or start your business visit thenewny.com

...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke.

you have certainly been designated it seemed as the face of immigration reform in as far republicans are concerned. how comfortable are you with your conservative colleagues and you point out that very often you've held the positions they still now hold. >> well, first of all, i'm not the self-appointed anything. i've worked on this bill and i can tell you that i think part of my job is to explain to people what it is we've worked on, try to justify it and hopefully gain their support. that's what i look forward to doing. i think we have addressed and i have taken into account the concerns that i have and others have about our situation. look, i am not happy. i am not pleased with, i am not in support of the reality that we have 10 or 11 million people in this country undocumented. i wish we didn't have that problem. quite frankly, the decisions led to that problem were made when i was in ninth grade. but we do have that problem. we're not talking about bringing in 11 million people undocumented, they are here now. we have four choices, we can leave it the way it is, which is de facto amnesty, we can try to round everybody up and send them

back, we can make life miserable so they'll deport themselves, i don't think that works either. or we can try to address it in a way that's responsible but humane. in a way that sunt fair to the people who are doing it the right way and doesn't encourage people to do it the wrong way in the future and i think that's what we have arrived at and i hope i can convince people that this is the right approach. >> and this very out front position that you have -- and i wasn't suggesting you self-appointed, you seem to be the go-to guy for this gang of eight. >> yeah, i know. >> do you think this would help or hurt marco rubio if he perhaps ran for president in 2016? >> you know, i haven't even thought about it in that way. i know it is hard to believe for those that live and breathe politics. >> seriously, senator? i really haven't. i have a job. my belief has been if i do my job and i do my job well, i'll have options and opportunities in the future to do things whether it's run for re-election, run for something else or give someone else a chance at public service.

that's how i view this issue. this is a serious problem in florida. we have i don't know how many millions of people in florida undocumented. it's a serious problem in america. >> my time is running out. i wanted to point out to you that the mayor's coalition that is trying to get stiff gun control out of the u.s. congress has put out an ad that's running in florida that says rubio would "let criminals and the mentally ill get guns without a background check, 91% of floridians support background checks but rubio's presidential ambitions make florida less safe." will you support the new toomey/manchin compromise on expanding background checks to gun shows? >> to be fair, i haven't read it. so i don't like to comment on things i haven't read, but my position on guns is pretty clear. i believe law-abiding people in the united states have a fundamental constitutional right to bear arms. and i believe criminals and dangerous people should not have access to guns. >> but in general -- >> protects those two things -- but in general the point is many of these gun laws are ineffective.

they don't do those things. they either infringe on the right of law-abiding people and do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of dangerous people. i'm troubled this debate is about guns. it should be violence. violence is the problem, guns are what they're using. we had a kid build a bomb in a dorm room here recently. the point is, the fact of the matter is that we have a violence problem in the united states and we are missing a golden opportunity to have an open, honest, and serious conversation about why it is that we having are these horrific violent act oes curing in our society. because everyone's focused on passing these laws that are proven ineffect i have and will prove ineffective in the future. >> and finally i have to quickly ask you do you believe the honeymoon trip of jay-z and beyonce to cuba violated existing rules on u.s. travel there? >> well, i don't know where they went. if they didn't violate, it exposes the ridiculousness of the laws we have in place. we are allowing people to travel to cuba as tourist. they're delivering hard currency to a tyrannical regime who turns

around and uses it to oppress its people. i think hypocritical of the people who took that trip because they didn't meet with some of the people that are actually in trouble today. there's a rapper in cuba, a hip hop artist in cuba on a hunger strike and persecuted because he has political lyrics in his songs. i wish they would have met with him. if they wanted to know what was going on in cuba, they should have met with some of the people suffering there not simply smoke cigars and take a stroll down the street. >> senator marco rubio, we thank you for your time. one correction from me that was actually about the honeymoon trip but an anniversary trip. thank you so much. on guns, immigration and on beyonce and jay-z. we appreciate it. >> thank you. when we return, liberals and north korea's readies celebrations for the biggest holiday as thaib their neighbors brace for a possibility military display. the headlines are next. up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. and it got his okay on treatment from miles away. it even pulled strings with the stoplights.

my ambulance talks with smoke alarms and pilots and stadiums. but, of course, it's a good listener too. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everything works like never before. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. welcnew york state, where cutting taxes for families and businesses is our business. we've reduced taxes and lowered costs to save businesses more than two billion dollars to grow jobs, cut middle class income taxes to the lowest rate in sixty years,

and we're creating tax free zones for business startups. the new new york is working creating tens of thousands of new businesses, and we're just getting started. to grow or start your business visit thenewny.com [ male announcer ] purpose elevates what we do. raises it to a more meaningful place. makes us live what we do, love what we do and fills our work with rewarding possibility. aarp connects you to a community of experienced workers and has tools to help you find what you're good at. an ally for real possibilities. aarp. go to aarp.org/possibilities.

returning to our top story. north korea has yet to launch a missile, but it is sticking to its hardline rhetoric. earlier on "state of the union," john mccain says that they pose a serious military threat and

that china is the key to easing tensions along the korean peninsula. in japan today, secretary of state john kerry urged north korea to pursue a peaceful end to the crisis. china's reporting two new cases of humans with bird flu. the country now has 51 people infected with the virus. a new strain of bird flu was discovered last month. the world health organization says there's no evidence of human-to human transmission. so far 11 people have died. l.a. lakers star kobe bryant suffered a season ending and maybe a career-ending injury. bryant tore his achilles' tendon friday. he underwent successful surgery saturday, but his injury is expected to take six to nine months to heal. thank you so much for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington. head to cnn.com/sotu for extras and analysis including our getting to know interview with senator joe manchin. if you missed any part of