bob, you know, i think it was winston churchill that once said you can always depend on america to do the right thing. after exhausting all other possibilities. and my late mother used to tell me, she said, "you know, the good old days were never the good old days." twef had a democracy for 235-odd years and it works in the end and that's what's in important. in terms of the charm offensive look the president's job is to lead congress. >> and find it fascinating people criticize him for taking people too dinner. he should be doing that every night. they criticized him for playing golf with people he has to deal. he should be doing that every weekend. you always can work better with somebody that you have a chance to build a social relationship with. qwestering is here. it will go on for a while. it's not going to be the end of the world as we know it. and everybody was saying, oh, we're going to-- the worst-case scenario is exactly what we're going to implement." and now they're into the real world and they'll try to find

ways to do more with less, and then hopefully congress will come together and modify sequestering to cut things back where we can afford it, and where-- and not where we can't and keep in mind, no program to reduce the deficit is-- makes any sense whatsoever unless you address the issue of entitlements-- edcare, medicaid, social security-- interest payment on the debt which you can't touch and defense spending. everything else is tiny compared to that. >> schieffer: all right let's talk a little bit about guns. you're in the forfront of this debate. that's for sure. itarchs peers from-- it appears from what we're hearing from capitol hill right now there's going to be-- it's not going to be possible to ban saltweapons which was the purpose of a lot of people's projects when they started out on all this, but it does seem they're make something headway on getting better background checks on the sale of

these weapons and checks on people who are buying them. where do you see this going and where does it need to go? >> the truth of the matter sonly about 400 people a year get killed with assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. that is 400 too many, and they're all tragedies but you compare that to handguns, pistols this year are going to kill 12,000 americans. and 19,000 americans are going to commit suicide with a handgun, and there are 14 states that have background checks required under all for all sales. federal law says background check when a gun dealer sells you a gun but no background checks over the internet or at gun shows. 14 states have closed the loophe'll, and in those rates the suicide rates is half the national average and the number of women who get killed in domestic violence is something like 40% less than other states. so background checks do work.

i think the f.b.i. last year turned down something like 80,000 requests to buy a gun because people either were minors had criminal recordes, substance abuse problems or mental problems and that's what federal law prohibits gun dealers from selling to, those people and that's exactly what we should expand. and i'm optimistic congress will do something. we've done a poll, something like 22 states and i don't know 50 congressional districts, and overwhelm people-- 80% to 90% of the people want substantive background checks before people who shouldn't have guns can buy a gun and we even ran an ad showing the results of those polls, and giving people the names of their senators and congressmen so they can call up and make their views known to their elected officials. >> schieffer: let me just ask you the obvious question-- if people are hostage are

overwhelmingly for this, why is it so hard to get the congress to do it? >> because up until now it has only been the n.ray n.r.a. that has been talking talk about guns to the public and to congress and i'm trying to level the playing field by bringing out the facts. the truth is the nra itself a few years ago was in favor of background checks. for some reason-- and i don't understand it because it makes no sense-- they have changed. and in fact they should be out there arguing for the rights of it gun owners, protecting the second amendment but we all know that certainly people shouldn't have guns. you just don't want to to give criminals guns. it has nothing to do with the second amendment. you don't want to give people with mental problems guns who might kill themselves or kill somebody else. that makes sense. up until now it's only been the nra. they've had the field to themselveses, and what i'm trying to do is explain to the public what the issues are and then let the public decide, and there are a lot of other people that want to join in this fight

and give an aisle to the nra. it's simply a question of information and we did that in illinois a couple of weeks ago where we explained to the public the views of the different candidate cans when it comes to allowing guns to be purchased by kids and drug dealers. and the public went to the polls and they voted and they vote for somebody that-- who i've never met but they voted for somebody who thinks that we should not allow those people that wouldn't responsible be be able to handle a gun to buy one and they did not vote for the person that did. >> schieffer: i wanted to ask you about that race out in chicago because you put resources into that. you came out for the person who was for stronger gun laws. this case, it worked. can we expect to hear more of that sort of thing and more of that kind of support from you for other candidates around the country? >> well, i really think that

things in washington are going better than anybody is willing to understands. the judiciary committee just took up gun legislation the other day. it starts the process. the federal government doesn't overnight do things, and probably shouldn't write laws that quickly. the president and vice president are committed here. there's an awful lot of momentum among both republican and democratic rural and urban and suburban congressmen and senators and red states and blue states to do something that will protect the public. >> schieffer: i want to ask you about sugary drinks, because your ban on these large sugary drinks goes into effect, i guess next week in new york. and already we're seeing some people who are saying this is making it really hard on us, not necessarily people who sell those sugary sodas but people like-- well, starbucks. they don't know what to do about some of the coffees that they

sell. what about all that? >> number one that's ridiculous. they can figure out-- starbucks knows how to market things, knows how to package things. they can change instantly when it's in their interest to do so. this is in the country's interest. this year for the first time in the history of the world more people will die from too much food than from too little food. more people will die from the effectes of obesity than from starvation. and we've got to do something about this. this is going to bankrupt the country. our medical system cannot handle it. being overweight is the first time it's gone from a rich person's disease to a poor person's disease. we've just got to do something and all we're doing in new york is reminding you that it's not in your interest to have too many empty calories. you can have some. if you want to have 32 ounces, just buy two 16-ounce cups. take them back to your seat. you want 64 ounces, take four cups back.

but what's likely to happen here is you'll take one and probably not come back for the respond but it's totally your choice. we're not banning anything. it's called portion control. it's typical way companies use and governments use to explain to people that of what's in their interest and what isn't. every food manufacturer and soft drink manufacturer, they have portion control. what they're trying to do is to maximize their profits profits and what government is trying to do is inform that you if you're overweight and you have all these emptyical exprez empty calorie and keep eating your health will suffer and you will live not as healthy and a shorter life. >> schieffer: all right well, mr. mayor we always enjoy talking to you and hope you come back to cise again thank you. >> bob, always appreciate the invitation. looking forward to it, thanks. >> schieffer: joining us now to get the latesto the budget crisis here in washington, democratic congress man soland

chris van hollen, and rob portman, two legislators the president reached out to. we're under the police departments too how big these cups can be-- >> portion control. >> schieffer: portion creel right here. you know, the president-- the big talk around washington is this so-called charm offensive. he has dinner with these republican legislators. you were over at the white house paul ryan, the head of the budget commit on the republican side. senator portman you have actually taken phone calls from the president in the past. but i guess what's unusual here is that this is actually news, which kind of gives us an idea of the-- how wide the divide is. did any-- is this doing any good, senator portman? >> it's great. i mean, to build some trust is a good thing. but to be honest with you bob what the president needs to do is reach out not just to republicans but to democrats and ensure that he gives them the political cover to do frankly what most of them know needs to

be done. i won't speak for chris but having talked to him a lot about these issues, he gets it in terms of the need for us to deal with these very important but unsustainable entitlement programs. >> schieffer: do you think he has given up on dealing with the leadership? he feels like he just can't get anything done with them, and so he's going to kind of go around them? >> well, i don't think he's going around them, but i think he's acknowledging what many presidents have in the past which is you do need to talk to the folks who the leadership are listening to. the second thing he needs to do, bob, is he needs to talk to the american people about the reality. using the bully pulpit is incredibly important right now. we have to educate folks as to what the problem is. for instance, social security this year is in trouble. there's about an $80 billion deficit. the payroll taxes don't pay for the benefits going out. in medicare, on average a family gets about $3 back for every $1 you put in for premiums and payroll tax. and that's not understood right now. so in order to do what we have to do in a relatively short

period of time-- because the-- i think the window is pretty short here-- i think it's the end of this year-- the president has a big rel to play. meeting with republicans is fine but i think it's more important to reach out to democrats democrats and let them know he has their back and reach out to the american people. >> schieffer: that's interesting, congressman here you have a republican senator saying what the president needs to do is get in touch with his own party peeled in your party. is he, and is there more he can do there? >> well, the president has been reaching out to democrats. the complaint from our republican colleagues in the past was that he was only reaching out to democrats. so i think this is a-- an important move forward. the president had been meeting with republican leaders all along. after all, he had speaker boehner for a long period of time in negotiations last december. and speaker boehner said he didn't want to meet one on one with the president any more. that is what the speaker said. so newt super tuesday reaching out more broadly among republicans, which i think is a

good thing. ultimately, of course, in order for us to reach an agreement everyone's got to be willing to compromise. and the president has indicated that he wants to-- he understands he needs to make more cuts. we've done $1 important 5 million in cuts and understands he has to do more, and he recognizes you want to do it in ways that doesn't violate commit to seniors and we also need revenues and ultimately our republican colleagues are going to have to back off their position where they're saying you can't close one single tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the defense. more talk is good, but ultimately we need everybody to come together and compromise. >> schieffer: let me just ask you this because you were both members of this so-called super committee back there that was going to come together and you were going to be the ones who were going to work out something so we didn't have to go in to this sequestration.

were you ever close to a deal? >> well what i can say bob is i think everybody went into this discussion best of intentions. everybody got up to try and work hard every day to try to get a deal. there were moments when i think we thought maybe there would be a breakthrough. looking back, sort of in the rearview mirror, it's hard to see a moment where there was going to be a real breakthrough. and, again from my perspective and again obviously people have different perceptions it goes back too this fundamental disagreement. a balanced approach, a mix of ref new, as well as cuts. >> schieffer: was that your take senator because i've heard some people say look, we hay deal. and it just all fell apart. >> well, we came very close. and it was a balanced approach, and republicans supported it. and the republicans still -- >> so what happened. >> a balanced approach. i mean, look, spend signature problem. there'sspending is the and the congressional budget office told us if we don't do something on

the spending sight there's no way taxes can catch. spending goes up tow rapidly. social security, medicare, and medicaid, they told us they will double in size in the next 10 years, which is, of course, the main reason, along with interest on the debt, you add another $10 trillion to the budget deficit. revenue, on the other hand, actually goes up above its historic average by 2015, just a couple of years from now and stays above its historic average. so taxes on the economy look to be more than it has been since world war ii as percent of our economy. so we've got to deal with the spending side. that's what's critical. if we don't do that, bob nothing else will matter. >> schieffer: senator lindsey graham said he would support a grand bargain that includes increased revenue as long as there are spending cuts. >> we had tax reforms which helps grow the economy which is

historically weak, the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. tax reform will help the folks on bottom rung of the bottom of the ladder get up to the second and third rung. so that's needed. it provides us the ability as republicans saying we're getting the growth up on the of the taxes and along with entitlement reform we would be willing to put more revenue on the table. the super commit, we did that. the problem right now is we don't see from the president any structural changes in the unsustainable course on entitlements-- we see the request for more and more taxes at a time when we raised taxes $620 billion on the american economy. >> schieffer: what about that, congressman? are you going to have to do more on the entitlements than democrats have suggested doing thus far? >> we are, and the president has proposed that. the difference is a difference in approach when it comes to medicare. the republican approach to date has been they want to deal with rising medicare costs by transferring those extra costs on to the backs of seniors

whereas the approach we took in obamacare was change the incentives in medicare to end overpayments to providers and we saved $750 billion and paul ryan said he is going to include those savings in his budget, savings he campaigned it. against. so yes we need to build on that approach which doesn't pass the additional burden on medicare beneficiaries whose median income is $22,000. which is why we said we need revenue as part of the plan to reduce those other costs. >> schieffer: i want to thank both of you. we'll be back in one minute with former florida governor jeb bush to talk about immigration.

>> schieffer: former governor jeb bush joins us from the reagan library in california now. he has a new book called

"immigration wars." governor we want to welcome you to the broadcast your first appearance on "face the nation." we're glad to have you. let me just start-- >> it's an honor to be with you bob. >> schieffer: thank you very much. i want to start with the news here. for years you supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. now, apparently, according to your new book you no longer support that pup support a path to legal residence nethis country. why have you change? >> first of all i evaporate changed. the book was written to try to create a blueprint for conservatives that were reluctant to embrace comprehensive reform to give them perhaps a set of views that they could embrace. i support a path to legalization or citizenship so long as the path for people who have been waiting patiently is easier and costs less, the legal entrance to our country than illegal entrance. the worst thing we could do is

pass a set of laws and have the exact same problem we had in the late 1980s where there was not the enforcement and it was easier to come legally than illegally. so we need complete reform. and if that happens the work being done in washington right now, the effort is to create-- to create this dissentive for legal immigration and incentive for illegal immigration and have a path to citizenship. >> schieffer: as you know, what some in your own party are saying is what you're doing is laying out a more appealing position to those on the right side of your party. and that that is why you have changed your position. what do you say about that? because, they say, you're thinking about running for president. >> year, see that's the washington world the world of everything has to have a personal, political ambition motive. that's not the case. this book was written last year at a time when the tenure of the debate on immigration was dramatically different than it

is today and there were a lot of people that may have believed in comprehensive reform but hadn't been supportive of it, and i'm encouraged to see that's not the case now that people are moving in the direction of comprehensive reform. our book has many proposals in tnot just one. we deal with the dream act children of illegal immigrants. we propose some pretty provocative things about expanding economic visas model after the canadian experience. we think there ought to be a guest worker program. there's a lot to this book beyond just the one thing we're talking about right now. >> schieffer: but this is what's getting the attention. senator graham, the republican, one of those working on immigration reform when he harvard your proposals in this book his first reaction was "well, that undercut what we're trying to do here because we do support a path to citizenship for illegals." >> so senator graham didn't have access to the book because this information was given to him the day before it was published. when he had a chance to review the book and when i talked to

him, he said, "we're on the same page." >> schieffer: do your views coin side of those of marco rubio? >> absolutely. the fantastic thing is there are now people willing to take a risk politically for sound thoughtful policy on a complex issue. that's exactly what we need in washington, d.c. so i applaud what senator rubio's doing. the other members of the so-called gang of eight. they're making a major contribution. and there's also efforts in house of representatives as well. this is a very encouraging time because if we can get immigration right imagine-- there are possibilities of cats and dogs living with one another in other policy areas as well. >> schieffer: all right well, we are going to take a short break here, governor. we'll be back to talk about some of that. revolutionizing an industry can be a tough act to follow, but at xerox we've embraced a new role. working behind the scenes to provide companies

with services... like helping hr departments manage benefits and pensions for over 11 million employees. reducing document costs by up to 30%... and processing $421 billion dollars in accounts payables each year. helping thousands of companies simplify how work gets done. how's that for an encore? with xerox you're ready for real business. look, every day we're using more and more energy. the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ ♪ that's why right here in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ ♪ no matter what people can count on me to get the job done. so, when my

prostate cancer returned, my doctor told me that this time can be different with provenge a personalized treatment that lets me count on my own body to fight back. provenge is clinically proven to help extend life in certain men with advanced prostate cancer by taking your own blood cells and reprogramming them to jump-start your immune system, so it can attack your prostate cancer. provenge can cause serious reactions including those resulting from the infusion, and stroke. severe but infrequent infusion reactions include chills, fever fatigue weakness, breathing difficulties like shortness of breath decreased oxygen and wheezing dizziness, headache high blood pressure muscle ache nausea and vomiting. tell your doctor about all of your medical problems including heart problems lung problems or history of stroke. call 1-800-707-1447 for more information. talk to your doctor and find out if the time is right for provenge.

>> schieffer: i just finished the newly published third volume of the "last lion" the biography of winston churchill. manchester finished the research and organization of the book years ago but died early in the writing of it, and it was completed by his journalist friend paul reid. more than 1,000 pages, it is no light reading. it weighed in at six pounds on nigh bathroom scale. so heavy i put the book aside and pinessed ito my kindle. but it was worth it. i'm often asked who in history i would most like to interview and my answer is churchil. we owe him everything for recognizing the threat posed by hitler and the courage that it took in the beginning to stand alone against him. this book reminds us to remember as well his iron will and ability to focus. it recounts how once in the middle of dictation, an ash from his cigar set his clothing on fire. a secretary saw the rising smoke and said, "sir, you are on

fire. may i put you out?" the prime minister, not looking up responded with nawnch lawness, "yes, please do," and kept right on dictating. in this age of twitter fancy phones and multitasking, as we watch the self-important creatures of official washington lunge from photo-op to photo-op as the rest of us trail in their wake i wonder wouldn't it be better if we slowed down and focused on one thing at a time. we learned to multitask but we're not getting much done. basement of back in a minute so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

>> schieffer: some of our stations are leaving us now. but for most of you we will be back with a lot more of "face the nation," including more of our interview with jeb bush. he talks about whether or not he is thinking about running for president. and does he think republicans should raise taxes to help cure the deficit? plus, we'll talk about what kind of pope do catholics want and what kind do they need? it's all ahead so stay with us.

the captioning on this program is provided as an independent service of captionmax, which is solely responsible for the accurate and complete transcription of program content. cbs, its parent and affiliated companies, and their respective agents and divisions, are not responsible for the accuracy, or completeness of any transcription, or for any errors in transcription. closed captioning provided by cbs sports division

>> kevin: an important atlantic 10 game as the rams take on the owls. temple needing a win against a ranked opponent for their tournament resume'. this is the place to do it against the number 21 rams. hi everyone. kevin harlan alongside dan bonner and reggie miller let's put the game in perspective for our viewers. >> reggie: this is the first meeting between these teams. when they force 15-plus turnovers, they're 24-0. >> dan: temple is among the best teams in the country at protecting the basketball and you already said it. they're trying to win their way into the ncaa tournament. >> kevin: right now let's go to "the at&t fast analysis." >> reggie: shaka smart likes to call it his havoc style of play. i call it smash-mouth basketball.