With a day of service, and the first lady hosted a special concert for children of military families last night. This is what inauguration is all about. Its about celebrating who we are as americans and all the things that makes this country so great. And when i think about who we are, when i think about what makes america great, i think about all of you. On tuesday, its back to work for congress, and there are two big issues that are going to dominate the beginning of the president s second term. Guns and the nations debt. Joining me now to debate those i issues democratic senator Chuck Schumer of new york and newly elected republican senator ted cruz of texas. Welcome back as senator cruz to meet the press. Back to both of you. I want to start on the gun debate. Because as i say, even before the second term is officially under way, this debate is well under way. Here are the highlights of what the president wants to accomplish. Universal background checks. Hed like to pursue a ban on high capacity magazines. An assault weapons ban that of course lapsed the in 2004, and hed like stricter laws on gun trafficking. But senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne la pierre of the nra on this program very hard when this initially came up, i challenge you as well with the question of is this really going to make a difference . And rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in the National Review. No one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murdersuicide. Shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men with no criminal records who dont care if they are caught and usually want to die. These are adult facts that dont intrude on the childish world of white house policy making. He notes adam lanza in newtown, his own mother of course passed a background check. Right. Heres the bottom line. These laws are not always perfect. And youll always find certain exceptions. But they make a huge difference. Every major person who has studied the brady law, which is the most significant gun safety law weve passed in the last 20 years has said it has reduced gun violence dramatically. Law enforcement is totally for the brady law. And the idea that felons or people who are mentally infirm or people who are spousal abusers should be allowed to buy guns, most everyone agrees on that, even but theres no overwhelming evidence of the assault weapons ban dramatically reduced this incident of violence, nor was there an uptick in this sort of violence once the assault weapons law lapsed. Well, the bottom line is that during the ten years that the assault weapons ban was in effect, the use of those weapons in crime went down a significant percentage. Senator, is there any gun regulation, any restriction of gun rights, you could accept or vote for . Sure. I think the fact that we have background checks with people when they buy firearms and we prevent felons and those with serious Mental Illness acquiring them, those make perfect sense. So a background check is something you could support . Well, the background checks are in place when a licensed Firearms Dealer sells firearms. And theres a lot of room for improvement but 45 of sales are citizen to citizen. Thats the loophole we talk about. That statistic is pretty bogus. Its based on a study before the background checks were put into place. So that study is highly questionable, that 45 . Wayne lapierre never questioned that study when i brought up that point. He questioned feasibility and collecting records, but still there is a loophole that a lot of people would like to correct. There actually isnt the socalled gun show loophole. That doesnt exist. Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check. Its a requirement that applies to every licensed firearm dealer. What it doesnt apply to is personal sales oneonone. And thats true at a gun show or not. Is this most likely the area of agreement . The universal background check more so than ban on assault weapons . I would say this is the sweet spot in terms of actually making us safer and having a chance of passing. This is it. Right now, im the author of a universal background check bill. I am talking to pro gun democrats excuse me and republicans. And i think youre going to see very likelihood in the next week or two a proposal that has broad support for universal background checks. And i would say this to my friend ted. If you are a someone whos not a felon, you go into a gun store, a registered firearm dealer and buy 20 guns, which you can, theyll do a background check out, you can sell them to anyone you want, felon or anybody else. So there are huge holes in this law. And i would say this. The last time we made progress on the pro gun safety side was tightening up this law for mentally ill people in 2007. I carried the law, and the nra actually doesnt oppose it. I think we have this is the best chance of getting something done, and i think youre going to find much broader support than weve ever imagined. Its interesting, senator cruz. The president said to those americans who live in states like your own where there are very strong gun rights representatives, youre the ones who have to rise up and pressure those senators and congressmen to demand an assault weapons ban, a ban on magazines. And i wonder if the National Rifle association has helped his cause with an ad that was released this week that talked about Armed Security guards, the president skeptical those could work, did not rule it out. But talking about the president s children and that issue of security. Watch a portion of that ad. Are the president s kids more important than yours . Then why is he skeptical about putting Armed Security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools . Over the line . Look, im going to let people to decide to run what ads they want. I do think theres a fundamental point here, and there is a point of hypocrisy when it comes to gun control. That many of the proponents of gun control are very wealthy, live in communities where they can outsource police protection. But you have a lot of people that are worried about preserving the safety of their own home. If youre talking to a single woman living in annacostia, who has the misfortune to live next to a crack house, to hell her she doesnt have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms i think is fundamentally wrong. This is a narrower point about armed guards in school. This happened to be an ad that is factually inaccurate. The president s children are protected by the secret service, and thats not their own choice. Youre trying to make a broader point, which i understand. But you think this is constructive to move the public debate forward . What i dont think is constructive is what the president is doing right now, which is within minutes of that horrible tragedy in newtown, the president began trying to exploit that tragedy to push a gun control agenda that is designed to appeal to partisans, designed to appeal to his political partisans. Number one, it would have done zero to prevent the crime in newtown. Number two, many of the provisions are contrary to the constitutional protection of the second amendment. But number three, they dont work. You know, chuck said a minute ago the assault weapons ban was tremendously successful. The assault weapons ban was one of the least successful bills that has ever been put in place, and in fact, when the ban expired, there were roughly 700 murders using all rifles. Today, there are roughly 300. Theres less than half. This is not designed to actually solve the problem of violent crime. This is e designed to assuage liberal partisans who want to push their agenda forward. The president did not challenge anybody in his liberal base. He talked about all the measures. He didnt talk about video games or violence in hollywood where he gets a great deal of campaign funds. He didnt do anything to make his own folks uncomfortable. He just said to senator cruzs constituents, rise up and force him to vote for gun control. I dont think thats fair. The president has talked about generally dealing with violence in our society. I agree with that. But to take guns off the table, to not talk about guns when it comes to gun violence, is to not talk about smoking when it comes to lung cancer. It just doesnt make any sense. Its part of the problem. And we have to deal with it. Now i agree with ted. Theres a right to bear arms. I want to see that lady if she wants to have a firearm in her house have it. And i think those of us in the pro Gun Safety Movement should accept the heller decision and say theres a constitutional right to bear arms. And its no less important than the right to free speech, the right against search and seizure. But heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations. They are allowed reasonable limitations. I dont think that lady needs an assault weapon. I dont think she needs a 100round clip. I dont think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. And so to say she has a right to bear arms, yes. To say just like on the first amendment, we say you cant scream fire in a crowd theater falsely, we have antipornography laws, antiliable laws, and these are reasonable limitations. And many in the nra doesnt believe in any limitation. That isnt just unconstitutional. That is just dumb. Senator cruz, House Republicans have taken a step back on this debt ceiling standoff. Should it be raised. This is how the New York Times described it over the weekend. Ill put it up on the screen and have you react to it. Backing down from the hardline stance, House Republicans said friday they would agree to lift the lift the federal government governments statutory barri barring Borrowing Limit for three months, with a requirement that both chambers of the Congress Pass a budget in that time to clear the way for negotiations on longterm deficit reduction, to add muscle to the efforts to bring democrats to the table, they would include a provision in the debt ceiling legislation saying that lawmakers will not be paid if they do not pass a budget blueprint. Was it right to step back from challenging the president over raising the debt ceiling . Well, i think the house proposal is a step in the right direction. No doubt the senate hasnt done its job. Its been nearly four years since its passed a budget. But it doesnt go nearly far enough. We have a crisis. I just got back last week from afghanistan. And i had multiple servicemen and women clasp me on the arm and say, please do something about the debt and deficit. Were bankrupting the country. Thats what the American People are looking for. And to date, politicians have both parties have been unwilling to take even a tiny step in the right direction. Weve got to fix the problem. The senate has to pass a budget. Do you believe that . I do. Why has it been four years since youve done that . Well, let me answer this. This was a major victory for the president. The republicans have now twice lost out on fiscal issues in the last month. First fiscal cliff and now this. And i think they are losing ground on fiscal issues. On the debt ceiling, it made no sense to risk the full faith and credit of the United States for whatever agenda you have. The Business Community felt that. The public felt that. And so the fact that they have backed off both not only the idea that we should hold debt ceiling hostage, but second that it shouldnt be one for one cuts, you know, boehner used to say that, the house proposal doesnt say that, dollar in cutting for every dollar in raising the debt ceiling. Would you support a shortterm measure to force you to pass a budget . I think it should be longer because we dont want to play fiscal cliff every three months. But its a positive step. Will there are always spending reform measures and you never get a clean debt ceiling raise. Yes, you should. Thats not a question of whether you should. But historically its not been the case. Mitch mcconnell proposed it two years ago and we passed it. But let me say this on the budget. We democrats have always intended to do a budget this year. For two reasons. First, it is not true that we havent had budget control in effect over the last several years. The budget control act of 2011 put rigid spending cuts that are in effect that were in effect last year. We cut 1 trillion. We didnt like it. It was much more of a republican type proposal than ours. In effect, it expires this year. So we need a budget. But second, its going to be a great opportunity for us. Because in our budget that we will pass, we will lift tax reform, which many of my republican colleagues liked, but it will include revenues. Its a great opportunity to get us more revenues to help in part deal with sequestration and deal with the issue of but senator schumer, the db i want to get senator cruzs response here, but the reality is that the president is willing to throw the long ball on this big sunday of football, when it comes the gun control. And yet because of his view of republican recalcitrants, he doesnt step up and show real leadership and be proactive on a big spending cut proposal and medicare put proposal because he doesnt want to go there. Why throw the long ball when it comes to gun control but not take a leadership role when it comes to spending cuts . Well, he is. In the negotiations up to the fiscal cliff, the president put things on the table. 400 billion in medicare cuts. He was talking about change cpi, which youre talking about more revenue. Thats not big enough on medicare cuts according to simpsonbowles and others. You will have to do something bigger than. We have already done 1. 7 trillion in cuts. Weve done 600 billion in revenues. Youre going to need more revenues as well as more cuts to get the deficit down. And ive talked to leader reid. Ive talked to budget chair murray. Were going to do a budget this year. And its going to have revenues in it. And our republican colleagues better get used to that fact. Senator cruz . David, ill mention there was an area of substantial agreement with what chuck just said. He said we should never, ever compromise the full faith and credit of the United States. I agree. And in fact, there is a bill that i am cosponsoring, the full faith and credit act, which provides that, regardless of what happens to the debt ceiling, the United States will always, always, always meet its debt. We will never default on its debt. That was introduced in 2010. It didnt pass because harry reid and president obama didnt want it to pass. They wanted to raise the specter of a default to use. So, chuck, you and i could make news right now on national television, would you agree to support the full faith and credit act and take the possibility of a default off the table . I support the mcconnell proposal. Let us raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached. And if the president can raise it as he should be able to and if Congress Wants to reject it 2 3. The mcconnell proposal is a good republican proposal. I hope you support it. Thats the way to go. Let me ask you a question a bill that says regardless of what happens with the debt ceiling that the United States will never default on the debt, would you support that or not . I support the concept. Id have to look at the bill. The best way to do that is the mcconnell act. We may have just made news. Last week, general colin powell was here worried about a dark vein of intolerance in republican quarters. You are part of a stream of new faces in the republican party, minority faces and voices in the party that seem to stand against that. How did you respond to it . Well, i saw that interview. I respect general powell a great deal. I was disappointed with those comments. I think he was buying into some of the partisan attacks. If you look at this last election, for example, i think the most racially divisive comment of the entire election was joe bidens comment where he said if the republicans win, they are, quote, going to put yall back in chains. That made my heart weep to see a sitting Vice President playing to racial fears and playing on those issues. I think thats unfortunate. I dont think it has any place in politics. Chuck hagel, you were very tepid on meet the press a couple of weeks ago. I was. Now youve met with him, youre more comfortable, youll support him . I am. What changed . I said on your show that i wanted to sit down to talk to him, because i had real concerns. I did. I spent 90 minutes with him. I asked him very specific questions on the things that troubled me. His answers were forthright and answer answers that allayed my concerns. Should we keep every option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran . Yes. I went further. I said, do you think we can tolerate a nuclear iran . He said no. And i said to him, well, then, if we had to use military as the only choice, would you . He said yes. Second, i asked him hezbollah and hamas, should they be labeled terrorist groups . Yes. Should israel be forced to negotiate with them if they dont recognize israels right to exist, if they dont renounce violence . No, absolutely. Third, sanctions. Do you support increased sanctions . Would you support unilateral sanctions in . Yes. There were differences between those statements then and now. He said they were five, six, seven years ago. The world has changed. Even george bush didnt have a regime against iran at that point in time. I told him i was going to make these remarks public. And he said, go right ahead because im going to say the same thing at the hearings. At those hearings, hell allay the concerns of the people. It is sort of interesting, david, one final point neither apac or the antideaf Mission League or any of the groups have come out against hagel, and most of the opposition comes to be coming from the political hard right. We will leave it there. You spend your morning with cruz, and then you get to hang out with beyonce as chair of the inaugural committee. Working hard. Kelly clarkson. I love her. David, let me point out, every one of those issues that chuck just mentioned for hagel, he disagreed in his record with Chuck Schumer on israel, on iran, on hezbollah. Hagels record is directly contrary. And im always skeptical of confirmation day conversions. I understand its difficult to oppose a president of your own party. Chuck schumer has been a terrific