pass. >> we need bipartisan support to pass. >> it's not a done deal. it's going to be very close. >> we must not shut down the government again. >> we also don't want to have shutdown drama. >> only in washington can an agreement be so divisive. >> john has kind of got his irish up. >> you have no idea what you're criticizing. >> i see the tea party as indisenceable. read the deal and get back to me. >> are you kidding me. >> irish flare up or revenge of the moderate? >> i prefer to keep these conversations within our family. following a lot of developing news. a federal court ruling that key parts of the nsa surveillance program are more likely unconstitutional. we'll have much more on that story with the reporter who broke these nsa disclosurers, glen greenwald. but we begin with congress. the house has gone on holiday, the senate in session for the final week this year with the big question looming, will they get the votes needed to pass the so-called bipartisan budget bill that would promise us two years

without a shutdown? as is typical for a monday, the senate will hold its first vote at just 5:30 p.m. to confirm jeh johnson to lead the department of homeland security. but everything we have come to think of as typical for the senate ends there. the upper chamber is now bogged down in the rancor and contentious partisan politics normally reserved for the house. with a vote to limit debate on the bill expected tomorrow morning, majority whip dick durbin described the challenges. >> but we need bipartisan support to pass it, and the problems we have are two-fold. a handful of members of the senate are vying for the presidency in years to come and thinking about this vote in that context. and others are frankly afraid of this new force, the tea party force, heritage foundation force, that is threatening 7 out of the 12 republican senators running for re-election. so it's very difficult. >> the force gets strong. and senator durbin didn't even get to the third problem, republicans' listenering anger over changing rules of

obstruction. chuck schumer did sound optimistic the budget deal will get the republican votes it needs to pass. >> i think it's a pretty safe bet it's going to pass. after what happened in the house, where so many republicans voted for it, i think mitch mcconnell, the republican leadership, knows they can't let it go down. >> mcconnell is one of those facing a primary, of course. but, of course, also the budget bill's coauthor, paul ryan, who revealed the real reason that at least some reluctant republicans might come on board. >> government has to function. and we saw the specter of two possible government shutdowns in 2014. one in january and one in october. i don't think that's good for anybody. we also don't want to have shutdown drama so we can focus on replacing obamacare. so we can focus on showing better ideas. >> you've got that? we need to fund the government so we can focus on obamacare. in case you thought you had heard the last of repeal and

replace, and we haven't heard the last of those debt ceiling demands, either. >> we as a caucus, along with our senate counterparts, are going to meet and discuss what it is we want to get out of the debt limit. we don't want nothing out of this debt limit. we're going to decide what it is we can accomplish out of this debt limit fight. >> we don't want nothing. we want something. well, someone is getting an early jump on those new year's resolutions. let's get right to our panel to break it down with us from washington, msnbc's karen finney, host of "disrupt" and dana mill bank for "the washington post." karen, we went through some of the hurdles and the votes on this bill, the incumbent tea party challenges, the anger over that rules change, which is a big deal. they were angry at obama for trying to staff the government with his nominees. now angry they can't obstruct that. how much of this is going to get in the way of a final deal? >> all of it. if you listen to some of the rhetoric friday and saturday and going into the vote tomorrow, a lot of this is about right now is people doing their politics, particularly those members, as

you pointed out, who may have tough primaries. those republicans who have got tea party primary challengers. they have to puff their chests up and, you know, thump -- you know, stomp around a little bit. many of them, like mitch mcconnell, won't end up voting for the bill. but at the end of the day, i think harry reid is going to get it passed. >> yeah. and we don't know exactly how they're going to divi up those responsibilities. we're looking here at live footage of the senate floor there, senator sessions talking about a range of the issues facing the senate here, dana. but there is something of a new normal here, isn't there? we have talked before about john boehner really coming out against those groups that have been giving him heartburn for a long time. take a listen to paul ryan's response to that. >> i think john got his irish up. he was frustrated that these groups came out in opposition to our budget agreement before we reached a budget agreement. i was frustrated, too. but i think these are very important elements of our conservative family. i would prefer to keep those conversations within the family. >> dana, i'm not an expert on

santa or on the move i can't. can you shed some light on that line? >> well, i think what happened is, speaker boehner came out and defended paul ryan and his deal-making, and paul ryan just returned the favor by throwing the speaker under the bus. but i am not so sure there is any sort of new normal here. i think there was a brief abnormal in which people said look, guys, we've just got to cut a deal here. and they've got an incredible blowback for doing that. that's why you see paul ryan tiptoeing away, saying we shouldn't be out there criticizing these conservative groups, and suggesting that, oh, okay, maybe we won't have a shutdown, but we can still play that old default game again. so -- which is back to the old way of doing things. and now, of course, the senate has become the new house, because in part because of the rules change there. in part because -- of all these primary challenges the republican members are facing. but they are behaving very much like the house now.

yeah, they're going to pass this budget deal, it sounds like. but they're going make it really ugly along the way. >> yeah, your point about the in-fighting, karen, it's important here, because, look, the tea party likes to fight. they like to protest. they like to get dressed up and go out in these events. so, you know, if you're going to be at all their mascot which is what paul ryan has been on economic policy, you've got to be comfortable with that. the idea of keeping it in the family isn't at all, i don't think, politically what the tea party has ever been about. >> i agree. and i think there is a lot of sort of research and analysis. if you look at the tea party, i think that suggests they don't actually care about how they are in the polls. i think that's pretty obvious, right? they have been falling in the polls, opinions about the tea party for several months now. they don't seem to care. that's not what got them, you know, to the table to, quote, unquote, make a deal. i think with paul ryan, part of the reason we saw a change in rhetoric, he's looking at 2016, and since he can't run as an outsider from washington, he's got to say, well, i'm a guy who can get some things done. i think that's a lot of what we

saw here. but let's not forget one very important thing that paul ryan said yesterday. they want something for the debt ceiling. and that means that truthfully, this whole idea of a government shutdown is not really off the table. because the tea party, being who and what they are, there's no reason to suggest that even as early as february will be going through all of this again. >> no, i appreciate your point. i put it slightly differently. there is some kind of shutdown. it won't technically be a federal government shutdown but economic shutdown and drama used to get by what they can't get by democracy seems to be on the table. and danaa, i don't want you to have to play grinch. am i being too old fashioned to say it is inappropriate for paul ryan, leader of the budget committee to say that one of the reasons to fund the federal government, which is part of his obligation, one of his reasons to do that was a political strategy he could pivot back to attacking the aca? isn't that inappropriate? >> well, but he's basically

stating the game plan. so i -- i'm not sure propriety enters into this or anything else happening in washington right at the moment. that was actually being fairly candid on this. you know, the republicans, you know -- the very day they had their caucus meeting in the house discussing how they were going to deal with this budget compromise, they came out of there not talking about the budget promi budget compromise, but one after the other talking about obamacare again. they do not want any distraction from that message. >> yeah. and but i just think for a budget guy, it is a weird thing to say we need to do this, get it off the table. that's been his whole message for years on the sponl responsibility side, which is we need a certain kind of budget, i certain kind of solvency. >> he's being honest. i mean, you know. >> right. and that's -- a gaffe in washington is when you accidentally speak the truth. >> we'll end on that point of honesty and consensus. dana mill bank and karen finney, thank you both. and reminder, catch "disrupt"

with karen feeney every day at 4:00 on msnbc. the nsa, edward snowden and the secrets we keep. glen greenwald, his reaction and developing news today. a federal judge ruling that parts of the nsa data collection program is likely unconstitutional. stay with us for that. [ laughter ] he loves me. he loves me not. he loves me. he loves me not. ♪ he loves me! that's right. [ mom ] warm and flaky in 15, everyone loves pillsbury grands! [ girl ] make dinner pop!

everyone loves pillsbury grands! so when my moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis them. was also on display, i'd had it. i finally had a serious talk with my dermatologist. this time, he prescribed humira-adalimumab. humira helps to clear the surface of my skin by actually working inside my body. in clinical trials, most adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis saw 75% skin clearance. and the majority of people were clear or almost clear in just 4 months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma,

or other types of cancer have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. make the most of every moment. ask your dermatologist about humira, today. clearer skin is possible.

a federal court in washington today ruled the key parts of the nsa surveillance program are likely unconstitutional. it's the strongest rebuke of the nsa's expanded power since they were disclosed by leaks from

edward snowden. judge richard leon ruled, quote, i cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invacation than this systemic collection of information on every single citizen without prior judicial approval. the author of our constitution, james madison, would be aghast. the judge also wrote that the government didn't criteria a single instance in which its analysis of the nsa's bulk data collection actually stopped an imminent attack. the ruling comes as the nsa faces increasing pressure from the obama administration which convened a pam of surveillance experts to consider reforms to the agency in august. >> we're forming a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. and they'll consider how we can maintain the trusts of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used. >> president obama has been

criticized over the issue, particularly regarding nsa monitoring of foreign leaders. however, this weekend, that very group turned its first report in with several ideas to rein in the nsa. according to government sources quoted, those ideas include limiting the use of bulk surveillance. the nsa's practice of collecting data first, and reviewing it later. that's at issue in today's court ruling. it also suggested taking the nsa's power away from military control to enhance civilian power and ensure senior officials are reviewing that spying on foreign leaders and also to stop allowing the nsa to make its case in secret court without any other side present. the panel recommends adding public defenders to debate the nsa's claims and that is important. it would require changing current law. in fact, a change the president himself advocated after snowden leaks were published by the "guardian's" glen greenwald, this summer. >> we can take steps to make sure civil liberties by ensuring

the government's position is challenged by an adversary. >> the nsa is pushing back hard on any reform. last night granted unusual access to "60 minutes". and nsa officials defended widening surveillance powers. >> my concern on that, especially what's going on in the middle east, what you see going on in syria, what we see going on, egypt, libya, iraq, is much more unstable. the probability that a terrorist attack will occur is going up. and this is precisely the time that we should not step back from the tools that we have given our analysts to detect these types of attacks. >> joining us now to unpack the new ruling and nsa's defense of its widening surveillance practices, a reporter who broke this story, glen greenwald. glen, your reaction to a strong ruling here from a federal court today, finding that the nsa's data program is likely unconstitutional. >> it's an extraordinary ruling,

ari, and absolute vindication for two specific attributes. one is it's a vindication of the constitutional rights of american citizens. not to have very intimate information collected about us without even a sniff or hint of suspicion, let alone probable cause, as the judge ruled. it violates the crux of the fourth amendment's guarantee against those kind of searches. and also i think a very important vindication for our fellow citizen, edward snowden, who came forward because, as he said, he found out that the government in secret was violating our constitutional rights, and could not in good conscience let that stand. and he was branded a traitor and criminal by media outlets across the country, including the one we're speaking on. here is a court saying that the very first program that he revealed through our newspaper is, in fact, a profound violation, an assault on the basic rights of all americans and i think there is pure vindication. >> yeah, well, it is very

interesting, no matter where people come down on their view of edward snowden personally, today you have a federal judge, respected one, appointed 2001, involved in many cases saying what others have charged, that the aspects and the expansive nature of this surveillance is not constitutional. that's the likely finding from this judge. i want to read another point from the ruling. the judge writes that the almost or we willian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone met adata of every telephone user in the u.s. is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979. glenn, as you know, he uses that data because several people defendinging the program have said that earlier cases regarding something called a pen register basically oh earlier protections of a certain kind of surveillance, make all the broad surveillance okay. what did you read into that discussion there, rejecting that precedent? >> just one quick word about this judge leon. i've seen on twitter and

elsewhere some progressives saying he was a fan of george w. bush. and he was. he's not a partisan hack. he is one of the most aggressive judges against the detention programs at judge guan tan mow. one of the most respected judges in the country for constraints on the nsa. you couldn't have asked for a better judge. >> let me jump in on that. >> sure. >> and say i think there is no doubt this judge has a record of standing up to administrations of both parties and appointed by bush but on the guan tan mow case, particularly in 2008, took on that administration. rejected claims on security from both administrations. your thoughts, though, on the rejection of the precedent from the '70s. >> what he said was crucial. he said in 1979, the supreme court approved a very limited form of collecting one person's phone records for a limited investigation. and that has absolutely nothing to do, essentially, with what the government is doing now. which is collecting all people's phone records and then storing

them for five years and engaging in very sophisticated forms of analysis so that they can trace who our network of associations and friends are, what we do in life, who it is we're speaking to. that it's a different universe, technologically and legally from what the court approved in 1979. and he said that had nothing to do with this program. >> yeah. there was actually an extended discussion where he quotes justice sotomayor, and said phones have our personalities and personal lives and refers to political, personal and sexual associations that can be in your phone. so allowing the nsa to go in and vaccum that up without probable cause, this judge says is a big change. i also want to get new on what the obama administration's panel has reportedly been doing. it's early yet, but there are reports they want to rein in some of the surveillance, as well. your thoughts on that. >> well, first of all, the fact they want to rein some of it in is also a vindication, i think an important one, of ed ward

snowden and what it is he did in sacrificing his own self interests to bring this to our attention. but i also think it's worth noting this surveillance panel, like most of these advisory panels, was stacked with loyalists to president obama. people who were expected to essentially okay whatever it is that he wanted. and yet even this panel said that some of these programs go too far. and the reforms are really very, very mild. i think most people at the eclu say it doesn't go far enough. and yet you already see the white house saying oh, yes, our own panel has said the nsa should be separated from the military infrastructure but we're not going to do that. so there's this battle, i think, under way to say are there going to be real reforms or fake symbolic gestures to placate the american people. >> and you mentioned the aclu and obama administration. we have representatives from both later in this broadcast to discuss. my final question to you, what do you say to folks who look at this and say, well, this means that some of the leaks were unnecessary. that people didn't have to

violate the law to get this information out, because sooner or later our courts would oversee these programs. >> these programs have been going on for years. the obama administration has done everything they can, successfully, to prevent not only public disclosure, but any form of judicial adjudication. any reasonable person, even opponents of edward snowden, or defenders of the nsa, would acknowledge that the only reason we're having these debates, the only reason the court was able to rule on this, and the court itself said, this was because of the reporting we were able to do thanks to mr. snowden's coming forward and blowing the whistle on them. >> glen greenwald, thanks for spending time with us. still ahead, we continue this debate on what the nsa can and cannot do. and later in the hour, a story that won't go away unless we do something. a fact check for some politicos and reporters. the president is not giving up on gun reform. >> we have to do more to keep dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily. we have to do more to heal

troubled minds. ♪ before using her new bank of america credit card, which rewards her for responsibly managing her card balance. before receiving $25 toward her balance each quarter for making more than her minimum payment on time each month. tracey got the bankamericard better balance rewards credit card,

which fits nicely with everything else in life she has to balance. that's the benefit of responsibility. apply online or visit a bank of america near you. we've learned how to stretch our party budget. ♪ the only downer? my bargain brand towel made a mess of things. so goodbye so-called bargain brands, hello bounty basic. the affordably priced towel that's an actual bargain. watch how one select-a-size sheet of bounty basic is 50% stronger than a full sheet of the bargain brand. it takes a strong towel to stretch a budget. bounty basic. the strong but affordable picker upper. and try charmin basic. [ male announcer ] if we could see energy... what would we see? ♪ the billions of gallons of fuel that get us to work. ♪ we'd see all the electricity flowing through the devices

that connect us and teach us. ♪ we'd see that almost 100% of medical plastics are made from oil and natural gas. ♪ and an industry that supports almost 10 million american jobs. life takes energy. and no one applies more technology to produce american energy and refine it more efficiently than exxonmobil. because using energy responsibly has never been more important. energy lives here. ♪ ♪ ♪ if i was a flower growing wild and free ♪ ♪ all i'd want is you to be my sweet honeybee ♪ ♪ and if was a tree growing tall and green ♪ ♪ all i'd want is you to shade me and be my leaves ♪

grown in america. picked & packed at the peak of ripeness. the same essential nutrients as fresh. del monte. bursting with life™. we are picking up with our big news today. before today's federal court decision ruling key sections of the nsa data collection program is probably unconstitutional, the head of the nsa, general keith alexander, told "60 minutes" sunday why i believes these programs are essential. >> how do you know when the bad guy using those same communications that my daughters use is in the united states trying to do something bad? the least intrusive way of doing that is metadata. >> joining us now to continue this discussion, matt miller, a con tributer to "the daily beast" and former justice department official under attorney general eric holder, and jameel jaffer. thank you for joining us. we were just speaking to glenn

greenwald, at the center of this story. and matt, i want to start with you. your thoughts on some of glen's views, as well as this ruling today, which clearly rejects some of the arguments being made by the justice department. >> yeah. i think the ruling today is certainly a setback for the government. but i don't think it's the kind of ruling that anyone over there is going to have a heart attack just yet about. if you just put it in some context, if you look at the affordable care act, it was struck down three times by different district court judges. it's not uncommon when you're at the beginning of litigation which is what i think we're at here. and there's a long road forward. i think eventually the supreme court will weigh in on this. >> you know, matt, let me go in on there. it is uncommon in this area. as you know, a lot of challenges to surveillance previously have been dismissed, because the courts have said to people suing, hey, you can't even prove you were spied on. that was different today. >> sure. and that's right. they do have standing. the judge found that. and i think that is a new era. and it means these programs will be under a new kind of judicial scrutiny now.

they were under judicial scrutiny, but this is different. and the judge made a couple key points. i think the point he made that the government hadn't shown a real concrete effect, that the programs really had thwarted a terrorist attack was a tough point for the government. one they're going to have to do a better job of in their future pleadings. >> jamele, you guys have been working at the aclu on these cases for years. your thoughts today. >> well, i think it's a really big deal. it's a carefully reasoned decision by a bush appointee. and it's not -- i think i disagree with matt that it's something that the administration is just going to brush off. i think they're going to take it real seriously and i think they have to take it seriously. >> yeah. >> it's a 70-page decision explaining this major surveillance program, this major surveillance program the nsa has been defending the last six months, that program is unconstitutional. >> matt, let me read from more of this opinion. i agree, it was pretty striking

and strong in its rejection of basically saying the nsa doesn't have these powers under the constitution. whatever you think of its efficacy. and then as mentioned, the judge didn't find the nsa carried the burden of proof about these programs stopping terrorism. but take a listen. the judge writes that simply the government wants it both ways. all of the government's briefs and arguments to the court explain how it's acted in good faith to create this database and serves as a valuable tool. yet then in one part of the brief, the government asks us to find the plaintiffs don't have standing because of the possibility the nsa collected a universe of data so incomplete that it might not have everyone in it, and the judge goes on to say, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence. pretty strong rebuke of arguably the obama administration or nsa carrying out its orders in this security arena. >> yeah. and i think he also said that the argument defied common sense, which if you read many government legal briefs about technical programs, that is sometimes common. but look, this is the first judge to weigh in on this.

there will be others. and i think the administration is going to make the case about why this is constitutional. why these powers were delegated to them in statute. i think they have a strong argument there. and but they're going to have to weigh that with showing what the efficacy of these programs are. i mean, this ultimately comes down to, if you can't have absolute privacy or absolute security at the same time, where do you draw the line? >> sure. and matt, what do you say as you heard glenn greenwald say earli earlier, this wind indicates the reporting, and the leakers who put this information out there? >> i think it is certainly true that this ruling would not have happened this quickly without the leak that we had. there is just no way this case could have been brought. but i think we don't know whether this program would have been declassified sometime down the road. the president has signaled he wanted to review these. and it does bring into a larger discussion of whether there were other ways for snowden to bring his concerns. either to the inspector generals

or other avenues other than leaking vast government secrets. let's not forget, this isn't the only program he leaked. he leaked a lot of other programs which have caused harm to national security. >> i think that's a fair point. i don't think you can look at any one ruling as a vindication of the leaks. this ruling is specifically about this metadata, the idea that the nsa is now getting information on millions of americans, previously undisclosed. a lot of other stuff swirling out there and i don't think we can reach a final judgment on that responsibly. jim, i want to play something on this issue around snowden and the legality of his current situation. take a listen from questions 60 minutes" last night. >> what was your thought on making a deal be? >> my personal view is, yes, it's worth having a conversation about. i would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured. and my bar for those assurances would be very high. more than just an assertion on his part. >> jamele, there you have one

nsa official saying they're open to potential amnesty for snowden and a deal. others have said no. what do you make of that discussion coming from the nsa itself now. >> well, you know, i'm not in a position to speak on behalf of edward snowden. but i can say that there's no way we would have had an opinion like this one without the information that edward snowden made public. we wouldn't have been able to have this debate at all. and in some ways, that's the most remarkable thing. whatever you think about these programs, and obviously i think that a lot of these programs are unconstitutional. but whatever you think about them, there's something to be said for having a public debate about them. that's what you're supposed to do in a democracy. and we can have that debate now. and we can actually litigate these issues in court, which is something we haven't been able to do for the last 12 or 13 years. every time we walk into court trying to challenge one of these surveillance programs, the administration's response has been, you can't challenge that because you don't have standing. or you can't challenge that because it's a state secret. or you can't challenge that

because it's a political question. there are all these threshold doctrines, these procedural doctrines that the government has been able to rely on to keep these issues out of court. and now for the first time we can have this debate in court. which is where it should be at. >> and that's what's so interesting about a news day like today. this big ruling, a lot of people feel we're actually safer as a country and democracy when we look at these things with our eyes open and figure out what we want the nsa doing in our name. jameel jaffer and matt miller, thanks for spending time with us today. and snowden himself did release a statement today that read in part this will be the first of many similar decisions on the nsa's authority moving forward. we'll keep an eye on this story for you. in the aftermath of yet another school shooting. don't tell this president that nothing can be done. my customers can shop around--

see who does good work and compare costs. it doesn't usually work that way with health care. but with unitedhealthcare, i get information on quality rated doctors, treatment options and estimates for how much i'll pay. that helps me, and my guys, make better decisions. i don't like guesses with my business, and definitely not with our health. innovations that work for you. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

from the anniversary of one school shooting to the breaking news of another, here are

today's top lines. we must and we can change. ♪ a moment of silence, lighting 26 candles for the 21st graders and 6 adults killed at sandy hook elementary school. >> we haven't yet done enough to make our communities and skri safer. >> the legislation is on the books, is lethal. it is killing people. >> these tragedies must end. >> every one of our mass murders has occurred in places where guns were prohibited. >> there were armed guards at columbine. >> does that not undermine your argument? >> no, the whole country knows there weren't enough good guys with guns. >> we have to do more from keeping dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily. >> it's an illusion to think that somehow we're going to be safer because we can't have a gun in a particular area. >> we have to do more to heal troubled minds. >> if we're really serious about people who have got some kind of problem, mental or criminal,

they ought to be in jail. >> another school shooting this time in colorado. >> march into his high school with a shotgun, machete and molotov cocktails. >> pearson encountered 17-year-old claire davis. >> this kid didn't exist signs of mental illness. >> whenever you get angry, i just want to shoot someone up. guys say that all of the time. >> guns are irrelevant to this problem. >> yeah, we get discouraged when the manchin/toomey bill was not passed by 92% of americans. >> i don't think 90% of americans agree on anything. >> as a nation, we can't stop every act of violence. >> the idea is not to be able to keep bad guys from getting guns. they're going to get guns. >> we know that this is a tough fight. >> we have to keep trying. we have to keep caring. >> and i believe that we will have sensible gun laws in the future. >> we're in this for the long haul. >> together, we must and can change. >> let's get right to our panel.

former chief of staff, representative of gabby giffords and executive director of americans' responsible solutions and michael waldman, president of the center for justice at nyu center of law and author of "the second amendment, a biography." pia, i want to start with you. we think about the anniversary last weekend, we think about this new recent shooting. what do you take away from all this, and our ability as a nation to take these memorials seriously and respectfully, but also mobilize around gun safety? >> yeah, i mean, it's -- it's -- period of time met with both sadness and disappointment that the building behind me can't seem to figure out a way to do anything to address this problem of gun violence in america. and also a sense of optimism. because we are seeing a trend in this country. first of all, these shootings are not going away. but more importantly, the nation is really focused on this issue in a way it probably wasn't a

couple years ago. and you're seeing this sort of steady drum beat of moms and gun owners and nongun owners, republicans and democrats, really kind of continuing to put the pressure on their elected officials. so i think it's just a matter of when, not if, for more sensible gun laws in this country. >> as you were speaking, we were looking at some of those images of those students exiting that school, and in those moments, i know when you get the first report and you're in the newsroom and you're trying to figure out how to cover it, you know, your heart goes into that moment of anguish as you wonder whether more students are going to be hurt. what are we going to do about this. and michael, when you look at the dialogue around this, sometimes it doesn't feel like we start with that basic empathy. that basic concern. and there's a "new york times" story today you and i were discussing on the front painful where you have a lot of sheriffs saying they don't even want to enforce the gun control laws that are on the books. you're writing a book about the second amendment as a

biographical history, as a constitutional doctrine. what do you make of all of this? >> well, ari, you're exactly right. these sheriffs are using language of nullification, which comes out of the civil rights era, even before that, the civil war. and when you look at the history of the second amendment, this provision in the constitution that says a well-regulated militia being necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, how we as a country interpret that has always been the product of political fighting, of publicage station. when it was first put into the constitution, and in years since. and, you know, this is a long-term fight. it took the nra and its allies 30 years to persuade the public and the government and then eventually the supreme court that their way is the right way to read the second amendment. and those who support common sense gun controls have a long fight ahead. but it's going to require actually getting the people to

talk about these constitutional issues too. >> you mentioned when you look at the politics around this, there is a deficit. we sometimes report on it like we're starting from the same starting line. but we're not. what did you think of this president, this weekend, coming out andty devoting his weekly address to the issue? >> not just his address but saturday morning in lighting those 26 candles. yeah, this is just not going away. and if you're a sentient human in today's environment, you're concerned about this. and i think for the president and some members of congress in the senate, they care and want to see something done. but there is this sense of, like, you can't have it both ways. you can't be both a gun owner and care about making our community safer. and that's just flat-out wrong. and that is -- we are rejecting that -- our organization flatly. gabby and mark are gun owners and care deeply about protecting the second amendment and also know that pragmatically, there is more we can do. we as a country need to move

past that notion. >> yeah. and michael, thinking about this is -- you have worked for president clinton, you have been in the room when people care about a lot of issues. and what's usually most important is what's the number-one issue. what is the nonnegotiable issue? what do you think about this president and his sort of commitment to this, even as people in washington tell him, hey, nothing is going to happen? >> you're right that bill clinton when he was president, he had tangled with the nra in arkansas. and he knew not only how powerful they were, but how intense their focus was. the challenge on this issue, there is a broad majority in support of a lot of very common sense gun safety laws. but people don't vote as a single issue on this the way some gun owners do or even some gun rights supporters do on gun control. and, of course, president obama in his first term barely talked about this at all. and it was really not until a year ago that he was awakened in a sense. >> i think -- from what we know, he was personally moved.

>> he told david axelrod that it was the worst day of his presidency. and so he can be a moral voice on this. but it's really right. look, when you look at the whole history as i've had a chance to do over the last few months in preparing this book, when you look at the whole history, throughout america's life story, we have had plenty of guns. and gun control. >> yeah. and that is -- that is something we can coexist on. pia garcon and michael, i want to thank you both. we will be right back as the senate does its budget duty or at least tries to. stay with us. ♪ by the end of december, we'll be delivering ♪ ♪ through 12 blizzards blowing ♪ 6 snowballs flying ♪ 5 packages addressed by toddlers ♪ ♪ that's a q ♪ 4 lightning bolts ♪ 3 creepy gnomes ♪ 2 angry geese ♪ and a giant blow-up snowman ♪ that kind of freaks me out [ beep ] [ female announcer ] no one delivers the holidays like the u.s. postal service.

priority mail flat rate is more reliable than ever. and with improved tracking up to 11 scans, you can even watch us get it there. and look for our limited edition holiday stamps. you can even watch us get it there. in controlling yournow overactive bladder symptoms. the new oxytrol for women patch. the first and only over the counter treatment for overactive bladder. put the control back in your go with new oxytrol for women. now in the feminine care aisle.

you give them the giggles.

tylenol cold® helps relieve your worst cold and flu symptoms. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol cold®. it's not the "juggle a bunch of rotating categories" card. it's not the "sign up for rewards each quarter" card. it's the no-games, no-messing-'round, no-earning-limit-having, do-i-look-like-i'm-joking, turbo-boosting, heavyweight-champion- of-the-world cash back card. this is the quicksilver cash back card from capital one. unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere, every single day. now tell me, what's in your wallet? now coming up, can the senate close the budget deal as they try to answer that question, we're going to welcome a member of the house for her take. but first, morgan brenner has the cnbc market wrap. >> thanks, ari. here's a look at how the stocks stand going into tomorrow. the major indexes surged to open

the week. we saw the dow closing up 129 points today. the s&p gaining 11 and the nasdaq jumping 29 points. that's it from cnbc. first in business worldwide. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ tires screech ] chewley's finds itself in a sticky situation today after recalling its new gum. [ male announcer ] stick it to the market before you get stuck. get the most extensive charting wherever you are with the mobile trader app from td ameritrade.

the senate is in session, preparing to put a bow on 2013, with a first vote due tomorrow morning on that bipartisan budget bill that sailed through the house. joining us is congresswoman, eleanor holmes norton, representing washington, d.c. we are short on time, congresswoman, so we'll get right to it. what do you think of the budget deal and outlook this week? >> they got the fifth republican senator. i think they've got it. let's face it. if this bill could sail through

the tea party-controlled house, first bill, i believe, since the tea party came to congress, where the republicans actually carried their bill, and didn't need the democrats to carry it for them, it was pretty even, democrats and republicans. but they had slightly more republicans voting for their bill this time. >> yeah. >> than democrats. >> that's a fair way to cut it. so do you head home for the holidays here feeling pretty good or where is your head at? >> how can i feel good? my head is downcast, because of the almost 1.5 million people who are not going to have their unemployment insurance extended right after christmas and by january, the middle of january, it will be 3 million. the easiest way for the republicans to have done it was in this package. so if the senate -- and i've got no word. a lot of us have been saying to the senate, fix this. >> yeah. >> i've got no word. we had a fix for it.

boehner didn't accept it. >> no. >> they really don't want to do it. they just don't want to do it. >> congresswoman, that is so important and we have been covering that. it matters to a lot of people out there. the last thing i want to get your thoughts on it seems like now that the enrollment numbers are starting edge up, we hear less about the affordable care act. do you have any optimism that as the individual mandate kicks in two weeks this story starts to change a little bit? >> i do. the democrats have to -- when they go home, get these good stories out here, the way i am. and my district, for example. my folks have gone online and found they could get cheaper insurance online. why don't we hear those stories, mr. president? we need the president to get out here, and we need every member of congress to go home and make sure those stories get out here so we're not dealing with anecdotal failures from the republicans. >> i hear you on that. congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, thanks for your time today. we are going to be right back and set the record straight on the affordable care act. stay with us.

♪ and ah, so you can see like right here i can just... you know, check my policy here, add a car, ah speak to customer service, check on a claim...you know, all with the ah, tap of my geico app. oh, that's so cool. well, i would disagree with you but, ah, that would make me a liar. no dude, you're on the jumbotron! whoa. ah...yeah, pretty much walked into that one. geico anywhere anytime. just a tap away on the geico app.

hands for holding. feet, kicking. better things than the joint pain and swelling of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. if you're trying to manage your ra, now may be the time to ask about xeljanz. xeljanz (tofacitinib) is a small pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers have happened in patients taking xeljanz. don't start taking xeljanz if you have any kind of infection, unless ok with your doctor. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests, including certain liver tests, before you start and while you are taking xeljanz.

tell your doctor if you have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you are pregnant, or plan to be. taken twice daily, xeljanz can reduce the joint pain and swelling of moderate to severe ra, even without methotrexate. ask if xeljanz is right for you. ♪ doing it with a cold, just not going to happen. ♪ vicks dayquil powerful non-drowsy 6-symptom cold & flu relief. ♪ no matter what city you're playing tomorrow... [ coughs ] [ male announcer ] ...you can't let a cold keep you up tonight.

♪ vicks nyquil powerful nighttime 6-symptom cold & flu relief. ♪ the politics of the affordable care act are about to change. that's because the individual mandate is about to become law in two weeks. americans have an obligation to follow the law, and members of congress have a duty to uphold it. and that includes congressional republicans. >> we have never encountered a situation in which we had a law so widely despised by the american people. >> if they really want to fix obamacare, they would join with us, repeal it, and start over. >> this fight, this debate, will continue until collectively the american people can make d.c. listen. >> no. not exactly. if people start listening to what's happening on the ground. so let's look today at the policy itself, because you know what's more important than all these politics? whether this policy is working for americans. and to figure that out, i think

we should check whether it's expanding coverage with private insurance, expanding coverage through public programs like medicaid, controlling costs, and preventing corporations from discriminating against patients. because remember, those are the law's goals. and here's some good news. it's working. discriminating against patients is now illegal. and costs are actually more under control now as the "new yorker" reported last week. and then there is expanding coverage shall which got off to a slow start in october, as we know. we now have numbers for october and november. and the trend line is clear. coverage is expanding for each category. state, federal and public care. yes, my friends, the affordable care act is working. this success is so important, it's worth thinking about in one other way. contrary to all the gop attacks on this law, there is no obamacare health plan. there is no obamacare doctor. the aca isn't even a government health plan. remember, it's a set of rules providing a bunch of different

ways for americans to get care. so let's look at those rising numbers again. here are all the federal enrollees. you see in blue. then people getting covered from participating state exchanges. and then all the new medicaid coverage, now 1.2 million people total headed for coverage. it doesn't matter whether they go through door number one or door number two or whether they use a website or the telephone or a local navigator guide. what matters to them, and to a lot of us who care about the uninsured crisis in our country, is that they get covered. this is progress. but it's not like everyone knows these facts. and sometimes it feels like there is more coverage of the website than coverage of, well, yeah, health coverage. that's partly because of washington, and it's partly because of the media. and it's partly because, look, broken website is an easy store to tell. the aca is not. it's complicated, because it amends and regulates an industry that was already complicated.

the u.s. doesn't do government single payer like europe. and the u.s. doesn't use a model where the only way to get care is if you're rich enough to buy it, like the ayn rand fan fiction and some of the bills coming out of the house. no, we do a convoluted mix of private and public, federal and local. and when you add that to a hybrid system, you end up adding to each layer so people have coverage options from door number one and two and three. and thus, it's not surprising that sometimes the simplistic pessimists win the spin war over the nuanced reformers. but my friends, believe it or not, i think the spin war is winding down, because this law is now being implemented. and this law is working. and in that environment, facts become the new spin. and the facts are on the side of the people following the law and expanding health care coverage. it's not easy. and no, it's not simple. but it's far more worthwhile than hating on the largest health care breakthrough we have had in a generation.

all right. thank you so much for watching. coming up right now, "the ed show" with ed schultz. good evening, americans, and welcome to "the ed show," live from new york. let's get to work. ♪ >> we as a caucus, along with our senate counterparts, are going to meet and discuss what it is we want to get out of the debt limit. i would prefer to keep those conversations within the family. >> don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. ever. >> hell, no, you can't! >> i think john just kind of got his irish up. >> we didn't get everything we wanted. >> we spent a lot of time just getting to know each other. >> you complete me. >> talking, understanding each other's principles. >> shut up. just shut up. >> look, i think john just kind of got his