Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers reacts to ISIS plan

Reaction to ISIS push, President Obama's summit on violent extremism


This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," February 22, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Iraqis building an offensive to take on ISIS in their second-largest city. Hi, everyone. Good morning. I'm Maria Bartiromo, and this is "Sunday Morning Futures."

U.S. troops training Iraqi soldiers for their first major offensive against ISIS terrorists in Mosul, but are the Iraqi forces up to the task? Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, is with us this morning.

An agreement is made, for now, in the labor standoff at our West Coast ports, but at what cost to businesses? We will talk to the CEO of Qualcomm, one of the biggest microchip companies in the world, about that and about tax policy.

And a big showdown looming on Capitol Hill over immigration. The bargaining chip? Critical funding for homeland security. Governor Herbert of Utah, the vice chairman of the National Governors Association, on how this could impact the border states, as we look ahead this morning on a jam-packed "Sunday Morning Futures."

Our new defense secretary speaking out this weekend on the anticipated Mosul offensive to retake Iraq's second city from ISIS militants, Ash Carter saying that any operation will be, quote, "Iraqi-led and U.S.- supported," and is expected to happen as early as this spring.

But critics say we should not be giving a timeline or giving our strategy away. Retired U.S. Air Force General Richard Myers was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Iraq war.

General, it is an honor to have you on the program this morning. Thanks for joining us.

MYERS: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Can you talk to us about the goal here?

Iraq's most pressing goal is to win back vast territory that ISIS has seized in the past year. Is that a fair statement? What should be the goal at this point?

MYERS: well, I think it is a fair statement, I think, to take ISIS on, head on, wherever they are. And Mosul is such a symbolic victory for them that we have to take them on there, I think. It would be my view, and apparently that's what the administration has decided, so we'll see how that plays out.

I -- I think the Iraqi forces will be up to the task whenever -- whenever it happens. They have much better leadership than Baghdad now to relate to, in terms of the armed forces leaders, that I think they will be very successful, actually.

BARTIROMO: General, you took the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff job back in 2001, serving as the principal military adviser to the president, secretary of defense, National Security Council, during the earliest stages of the war on terror. Can you give us your observation as to what has occurred since then?

MYERS: Well, I think we've seen the -- the war on terrorism ebb and flow since then. For a while, Al Qaeda was beat back to the point where they were operationally not very effective. They have bounced back a little bit, and then we've seen this -- I'll call it a mutation; some don't -- but a mutation into this ISIS threat. So the -- the basic threat that we faced in the late 1990s and then, of course, after 9/11, really hasn't gone away, and it ebbs and flows.

It's, right now, pretty strong in the form of ISIS. If ISIS goes away, my guess is something else will take its place. So, you know, you need a pretty long-range strategy to deal with something like this, and, I think, a comprehensive strategy.

BARTIROMO: All right. I want to talk about that strategy with you this morning, also about this new threat coming from Al Shabaab about the Mall of America. So a lot to talk about with you, General. Stay with us. But first, amid the growing threat by ISIS overseas, we want to look at the White House's approach to combating terrorism, in the context of last week's three-day violent extremism summit.

Fox News' senior correspondent Eric Shawn joins us now with that angle.

Eric, good morning to you.


And good morning, everyone. It is the description he dare not utter, "radical Islamic terrorism." Instead, President Obama prefers to use the term "violent extremism." The goal of that three-day summit was to find ways to counter the spreading ideology.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy, and all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorists' narrative.

SHAWN (voice over): Now, the president insists we are not at war with Islam but with terrorists who kill falsely in its name. That summit ended with promises of addressing human rights and the root causes of poverty that fuel alienation. But in 2002 President George W. Bush put it this way, quote, "We're taking action against evil people because this great nation of many religions understands our war is not against Islam or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil. This is clearly a case of good versus evil, and make no mistake about it -- good will prevail."

One of the countries that attended this summit was Egypt. Its president has called on their religion and its imams to address extremism. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has launched air strikes against an ISIS training camp in Libya and he has demanded a, quote, "religious revolution in Islam" to fight extremism from within. Egypt's ambassador to the United States is Mohamed Tawfik.

MOHAMED TAWFIK, EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: These terrorists are abusing our religion. They're using elements from religious texts in a way that was not at all how we perceive it to be, how the majority of Muslims perceive it. And it's up to us Moslems to deal with that, to take away their ability to abuse our religion.


SHAWN (on camera): Well, Ambassador Tawfik is also calling in the U.S. to arm the Libyan forces fighting ISIS right now, but some say no amount of good intentions or words will blunt the growing attraction for those who are intent on joining the Islamic state. Maria?

BARTIROMO: Eric, thank you very much. Eric Shawn.

Now more with General Richard Myers, joining us this morning. And, General, you mentioned we need a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS. What should that strategy be?

MYERS: Well, I think initially it has to be -- have an element of force, of course, to defeat them militarily, and so that's part of it. But I think, long-range, you have to think about the sorts of things that lead people to jihad. And this is -- this will be a multi-generational sort If strategy, really hard to implement. It would take lots of friends and allies, primarily led by the countries in the Middle East, to -- to clean up their political situations where people don't rebel against governments, to go join ISIS to find their true -- their true following.

And so, I mean, it's long-term, but you have to think about it like that if this is ever going to go away. Otherwise we'll just see other mutations of the same -- the same threat. People will want to join it for various reasons. And so it will be slow, but I think it has to be comprehensive to be effective.

BARTIROMO: Does it include boots on the ground?

MYERS: It certainly does. And I would say I think the approach, right now, is to have the Iraqis carry the brunt of the effort inside Iraq is exactly right. We can be very effective in providing mentorship to those folks, train them, intelligence, operational know-how. We can support them with more sophisticated weapons such as air power. But -- but it does require -- it's going to require boots on the ground, at least in the initial phases, here, as we -- as we take back the territory that they have gained.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, you know, it's interesting because this has been, sort of, the storyline that we keep hearing, that it should be the Middle Eastern boots on the ground first, but even in that White House summit last week on violent extremism, human rights weighed in, saying "We're sitting in the room with representatives of governments that are part of the problem, governments that are the worst defenders of democracy, if you could even say that. If the president believes what he's saying, then the actions that these governments are taking are undermining our supposed shared goals."

So how do you get the Middle Eastern countries engaged in the fight when they are actually dealing with the opposite and treating their people the opposite in their own homes?

MYERS: I think just through -- through good diplomatic relationships and encouragement and pressure to get -- get these governments to do the right thing by their people. And, clearly, funding for some of these terrorist groups comes from -- from countries in the Middle East. And so they are, you know -- they're a little bit confused about, you know, what their real intentions are. And I think we can be useful in trying to guide them to become, you know, a more -- a more liberalized society and maybe, through that, get to the point where people don't want to join jihad because they are frustrated by a government they see that is not following the tenets of Islam.

I don't -- I don't know if any of that's possible. I think that's the only way we're going to get through this and, you know, because I think our relationships, then, with Egypt, with Saudi Arabia and so forth, needs to be strengthened to help -- help them through it.

BARTIROMO: Let me ask you about the breaking news of the day and that, of course, coming from a new terrorist threat. The group Al Shabaab is out saying that their next target is the Mall of America. They want to - - they want to attack America. What do we know about Al Shabaab relative to ISIS, and what are your thoughts on this most recent threat overnight?

MYERS: Well, I think similar -- similar motivations, and it's one of the things, when I was chairman right after 9/11, we worried a lot about. And so my thoughts are that what counts here is having really good intelligence. Of course, can you step up your security and so forth, but you can't build walls high enough to keep determined terrorists, ruthless terrorists, out of malls and doing terrible things, so it really relies on our intelligence.

And I think it puts the whole debate about the National Security Agency and our privacy -- brings it into sharp focus because, you know, we've got to know; we've got to have some tipoff that things are about to happen. We have thwarted many, many, many attacks because of those -- that good intelligence, and we need to keep that up.

We also, at the same time, I might add, have to debate the whole privacy issue. That's very important, but I think it bring that debate into a little bit sharper focus. And in the end, it's going to be really, really good intelligence that's going to help us thwart attacks to things like potential attacks on any mall here in the United States and around the world.

BARTIROMO: And are you worried about a cyber-attack as well from terrorists?

MYERS: I think they will get there. I'm not sure -- I think the thing they are doing in the cyber space right now is using it very effectively to recruit, because they're recruiting young people and they do it -- they do it through the Internet and their facility with how to use the kind of things that young people look at and are attracted to. So I think they have been very good at using the cyber domain to -- to recruit.

I'm not sure -- and eventually they can get to the attack phase, and it's -- you know, it's pretty easy to attack infrastructure. And so we have to keep pressing on that issue to make sure we are -- we have the defenses up that are as strong as we need them to be, absolutely. They can -- we talk about terrorist financing. The cyber world is a good place to go find financing, by -- by hacking and so forth.

BARTIROMO: General, thank you so much for your insights. We appreciate your time this morning.

MYERS: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Thank you.

Retired four-star general, General Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

More on this latest threat against the West, Al Shabaab saying that it's targeting our shopping centers, even naming the Mall of America. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is with us next, on that and a lot more.

You can follow me on Twitter @mariabartiromo @sundayfutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear from Representative McCaul, who's with us live. Stay with us, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" this morning.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, just moments ago on "Fox News Sunday," explaining why the administration does not use the expression "Islamic extremism."


JOHNSON: They want to become an Islamic state, and to call them Islamic, to call them any form of Islamic, gives them too much dignity, in my view and in the view of a lot of Muslims around the world.


BARTIROMO: Congressman Michael McCaul is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, joining me right now.

Congressman, good to have you on the program. Thanks very much for your time today.

MCCAUL: Good morning, Maria. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Your reaction to Jeh Johnson's comments?

MCCAUL: Look, I think we have to define the enemy for who they are to defeat them. I understand what he's saying. I think the correct terminology is "Islamist," which means a political organization taking a religion and advancing that for a political agenda. That's who these terrorists are. But we have to say it's a terrorist movement, radical Islamist extremism, a terrorist movement to spread this -- this hatred of ideology.

And to completely ignore that fact, I think, is just not being very honest with the American people or the global leaders who are at that conference. I think -- I think it's important that these Arab nations stand up to this extremism, that is Islamist extremism, in the region, which is perverting their religion, and try to put an end to this. And that was not talked about at this conference. It was more of a group therapy session, rather than talking about how we can put a ground force in Iraq and Syria that's of Arab nations under American leadership.

So I think this -- unfortunately, all they talked about was job programs for countries where ISIS flourishes, and nothing of real substance. I think people would like to see a jobs program in the United States before they would in Syria and Iraq.

BARTIROMO: I really found that extraordinary, Congressman. In fact, at the summit last week, the president said, and he called on all of the nations there -- it was representatives from 60 countries, by the way, many of which are actually among the -- the biggest ones who are not treating their people right. But let me -- let me read you a quote. He said, "We have to put an end to the cycle of hate by expanding human rights, religious tolerance and peaceful dialogue."

MCCAUL: Look...


Look, we all agree with those fundamental principles, but meanwhile, Maria, they're cutting heads off and burning people alive as we speak. We need a more immediate program, if you will, that's going to put an end to this and a stop to this. I don't -- I don't see this military -- what we're doing militarily is working right now. It's a policy of containment rather than to defeat and destroy ISIS. We will be debating an authorized use of military force that -- I disagree with the White House version that actually weakens our military's ability to destroy and defeat ISIS. I think most Americans, as I go throughout the country, get the idea that they are a real threat, not just to the region but to the homeland, and that we need to do everything possible to destroy them.

BARTIROMO: Let me move on to the Department of Homeland Security, sir, because, of course, the DHS funding bill is due at the end of the -- at the end of the week, Friday the 27th. The funding may be held up due to the president's immigrations action. What are the implications here?

MCCAUL: Well, we had a federal judge basically agree with our position that it was unlawful, the executive action. That will be going up on appeal. I hope that the eight Democrats who are holding up a debate in the Senate will allow this measure that we passed in the House to fund the department but also strike down the executive action -- I would hope that they would take that up in the Senate and allow for a debate.

But if, in the final analysis, we cannot shut down the National Security Agency when the threat environment is so high out there. I think that would be an unwise and dangerous course of action.

BARTIROMO: So is this just setting up the GOP to once again take the fall if, in fact, the funding doesn't come through because they are trying to push back on the unilateral action of the president?

MCCAUL: Look, again, the House did its work. It's in the Senate. It's time for the Senate to act on what we passed. We did fund the department, and, you know, we'll see what happens in the next week. But, again, I feel very strongly, though, that we shouldn't be playing politics with national security at this very dangerous time. We all know how high the threat environment is right now, and we have a responsibility to protect Americans, really, first and foremost.

BARTIROMO: And what is the worst outcome of the immigration unilateral executive action?

MCCAUL: Well, that it -- it went around the Congress. It, in my judgment, was unconstitutional. We had a separate branch of government, the judicial branch, actually determine that it was unconstitutional. So the plaintiffs would most likely succeed, which was the basis for the temporary injunction in the case.

So I think it's an overreach on the part of the executive branch. And the courts have thus far -- they have called it that way. And I think on appeal it will go to the Supreme Court.

This will be determined -- the constitutionality of it, will be determined in the courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court of the United States.

BARTIROMO: Very quickly. Do you think DHS will get the funding by Friday or no? What does your gut tell you?

MCCAUL: I think the general feeling is that we will keep the department open. And, again, there's too much at stake right now to do otherwise.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, good to have you on the program today.  Thanks very much.

MCCAUL: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it. Representative Michael McCaul.

They power everything from cell phones and computers to cars and smartphones, or even maybe your own personal drone. Where is microchip technology headed next? And what about tax reform?

We'll talk about it from a business standpoint with the CEO of Qualcomm. He's on deck as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

Stay with us.  


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. After about a week of ships stuck out at sea, the parties in the West Coast port slowdown have reached a tentative agreement. It is estimated that that slowdown may have cost the U.S. economy up to $14 billion all told because those ports handle roughly half of our maritime trade, including 70 percent of imports from Asia.

Keep in mind it could take weeks, if not months, to clear the backlog of missed shipments. Steven Mollenkopf is with me today. He is the CEO of the telecommunications company Qualcomm, one of the largest microchip manufacturers in the world.

Good to have you on the program.

STEVEN MOLLENKOPF, CEO, QUALCOMM: Thank you for having me.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us, Steve.

A lot to get to with you. And first, I guess, let me begin on this West Coast port situation, it doesn't affect you. It's not like you have seen product or input pieces on those ships that have been delayed.

MOLLENKOPF: That's right. I think it would be something that would impact our customers, but I don't think it's something that's impacting our business down the road.

BARTIROMO: So you aren't worried about it. One of the interesting stories I think of Qualcomm is the fact that you have all of this cash on the balance sheet but much of it is overseas. Qualcomm has $31 billion in cash.


BARTIROMO: Twenty-eight billion of which is overseas?

MOLLENKOPF: It's a little bit different mix, but it's a significant amount offshore.

BARTIROMO: So what would it take to bring that money back to America in terms of tax reform? I was also interested to learn that you actually did take out a credit line just recently. I assume you're borrowing money because interest rates are so low, even though you've got this $31 billion in cash.

MOLLENKOPF: It's a strange system, actually. What we have, the tax incentives now for a corporation, it's actually easier or there's an incentive to invest outside of the United States because of the way the tax system works.

So, for example, when we come up with a new plant or wherever we're going to put new employees, the tax system today for a U.S.-based corporation that has significant offshore cash balances, it's actually easier for them to do it offshore, which is not good, it's not good for the U.S. economy, it's not good for U.S. workers, and we would like to see that changed.

The second piece that happens is because we have commitments to give money back to the shareholders, like any good fiduciary responsible company would be, it's actually you take a situation where you might actually take loans in order to give that money back.

And actually in some ways you create more risk on the balance sheet than you would normally do because of that tax situation.

BARTIROMO: Now, that's interesting because you did take out a credit line. I'm assuming you've got your shareholders meeting coming up in a couple of weeks. I can only assume -- and I know you're not going to comment on this, but I can only assume you're going to announce a big buyback of your stock, and you're going to use the money that you borrowed, not the money of the 31 billion in cash.

MOLLENKOPF: I think that's a good example of exactly what I was talking about, where a corporation makes commitments to the shareholders, like we did over the last two years to return significant money back to the shareholders.

And one of the situations that you're faced with is, do you take it from overseas, pay tax twice on it, or do you take a line of credit in order to do that? And you've seen that in our disclosures.

BARTIROMO: So if you were to see tax reform where we're not double- taxing money from overseas, would you bring more money back to the U.S.?

MOLLENKOPF: I think we're like many companies that would actually make it easier to invest in the United States, easier to do more friendly shareholder policies. I think it's something that policy-makers should view as a pretty easy way to create a stimulus in the economy.

We would be very much in favor of it.

BARTIROMO: Now you just announced a big settlement with China. You are going to pay a big fine to China. A lot of the analysts that follow your company say basically you kowtowed to China.

You're going to accept lower numbers in terms of royalties, and maybe this sets up a precedent for other countries saying, look, we want these terms, like South Korea, like the Europeans. Why did you do this settlement with China?

MOLLENKOPF: Well, for us it was a situation where it removed a significant instability and uncertainty clouding our business.

And remember, it actually opened up our ability to extend our business model much more fully into China. And China is the largest single wireless market in the world.

If you look at a carrier like China Mobile, it happens to be about 900 million subscribers, compare that to the largest subscriber base in the United States, it's almost nine times that.

So it's a significant expansion of the opportunity of our business model. And we were able to do that while protecting worldwide commitments as well. And that sets us up, I think, for much better investment in China as well.

So net-net we view it as a very positive outcome.

BARTIROMO: So you don't think this sets up a precedent for South Korea?

MOLLENKOPF: Well, I think any successful company, you grab the attention of regulators. And we've had our share of issues, as you know, but we've been able to resolve them.

And I think part of that is the fact that our business model enables us to share inventions with basically the entire industry. And it's very powerful. It's one of the reasons that the cell phone industry has so many different manufacturers when you look worldwide.

BARTIROMO: Let me ask you about the other industries and vibrancy right now. What are you seeing out there in terms of customers? And are there other industries away from our devices? I know you've been looking at cars.

MOLLENKOPF: That's right.

BARTIROMO: You've been looking at health care in terms of where the next big sort of mobile growth comes from.

MOLLENKOPF: Well, I think first and foremost, the phone market continues to grow. Most of the world doesn't have cell phones. They may only have 2G phones, they are going to get 3G phones, 4G, and smartphones, which is great.

The next thing that's happening is almost every major technology area or industry, things like health care, automotive, they are trying to come to us to partner and figure out ways that they can take advantage of the technology innovation that's happening in the phone industry.

So you're seeing cars that are now connected to the Internet. They are going to have a tremendous runway of new features. I mean, the day of the car leaving the lot and being obsolete is over because it's going to be downloaded the same way that your smartphone is downloaded.

Health care, tremendous amount of opportunity there when everything becomes connected. So I think it's going to be a pretty exciting future as these adjacent industries take advantage of all of this innovation that's occurring in mobile.

BARTIROMO: Are you seeing customers spend the money on these things? How is the economy, from your standpoint, real quick?

MOLLENKOPF: Well, I think it's going well. I mean, there's nothing better than having gas prices go from $4 to sub-$3, in the case of California. That's gotta help things out.

BARTIROMO: Steve, good to have you on the program today.

MOLLENKOPF: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. We'll be watching Qualcomm on -- on all of that, particularly the automotive industry, very exciting.

Can Congress hammer out a homeland security budget before the department's funding runs out on Friday? Will the president's action on immigration get in the way?

Our states' governors have a lot to say about this and how the feds are running things. Utah's chief executive will join me next, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." We're back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The president is set to hold a town hall on immigration this Wednesday in Miami. His executive order is the sticking point that's locked Congress in a budget standoff over DHS funding, the Department of Homeland Security. It is due to run out this Friday, all this happening as the National Governors Association is holding its winter meeting in Washington this weekend, funding surely a hot topic, especially among governors from border states.

Gary Herbert is the governor of Utah and the vice chairman of the National Governors Association.

And, Governor, it is good to have you on the program. Good to see you again.

HERBERT: Thank you. Good morning. We certainly enjoyed having you at our meetings yesterday.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much, Governor. I enjoyed it as well.

And one thing that I came away from the meeting with was the idea that a number of governors -- I felt that it was virtually unanimous -- are feeling that the federal government is using a brush-stroke attitude on a number of issues, whereas the states' managers, the governor of that state, likely has a much better or clearer idea of what is needed to be done when it comes to immigration, when it comes to education, health care, et cetera.

Is that where you are on this topic?

HERBERT: Well, I think, on many topics, the concern that we have in Utah and other states is the federal overreach really getting into the domain of Utah and the state responsibility. So we'd like to push back on that a bit and have them take care of things that really are of national consequence. Immigration is one that we've tried to address on a state basis. We're taken to court by the Obama administration and we're told loud and clear, "This is a federal issue."

BARTIROMO: It's a federal issue, but, I mean, I want to really talk about what's happening in terms of the DHS funding, because here we have real implications of the funding of homeland security being threatened because of the president's executive action.

How do you think this plays out?

HERBERT: Well, it's emotional on both sides, and, of course, nobody wants homeland security shut down. It's a dangerous world we live in right now. Probably of any time, we shouldn't have any kind of, you know, negative impact on our homeland security.

The Congress is concerned about a president who is going around them and using executive privilege in, probably, ways that are not constitutional. That's the debate. Again, we were challenged in court by the administration, saying, just because you're frustrated with the Congress doesn't mean you can go around them. I hear the president talking about his frustration because of a lack of an immigration law, but now he's trying to go around them.

Again, I don't think that's right, either. We need to have the Congress step up and really solve the problem and address immigration. And I know there's many steps to the problem, at least to the solution of the problem, but we can all at least agree to secure the borders and build a tall fence. But then let's work on a better gate, a wider gate. We ought to make sure that we have opportunity to resolve this problem and put the onus on Congress, which should solve the problem.

BARTIROMO: Explain the kind of -- the kind of strain that these unilateral actions will put on, for example, local budgets, local governments. At the end of the day, the states will pay for whatever actions come out of Washington?

HERBERT: Well, for some reason we think there's a money machine in Washington, D.C. And there certainly is a printing press. But the taxes that they generate all come from the states, from the local communities. It's from the men and women in our local states that send money to Washington, D.C., sometimes for good and noble purposes but sometimes just an over-reach, where they are trying to make us partner and mandate to us how to do things, whether it be education, whether it be how we build our roads, our transportation, you know, how we do our health and human services.

And frankly, that string that comes attached with our money back to the states gets in the way of effectiveness and efficiency. Better not to take the money from us in the first place, but if you do take it, just block-grant it back without the strings.

BARTIROMO: And you've written a letter to John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, to try to get them to help balance the powers between the federal government and the states?

HERBERT: That's exactly right. The concept of federalism, which is really a shared responsibility where we are partners, unfortunately, we've become the junior partner in this situation. As we know from our founding of our country, the intent was to have a stronger centralized government, but it was not going to overshadow the states.

And as I look at the budgets around the states today, if you combine all 50 states and their budgets, it totals up to be $1.7 trillion. The budget being proposed by the president today is $3.99 trillion. It sounds like almost $4 trillion. And how do we get this thing upside down? There's too much growth in the federal government and more responsibility ought to be delegated and left to the states, as per our Constitution.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, that's an interesting way to put it, adding up the budgets of the states and then looking at the president's budget. Sir, good to have you on the program. Governor, thank you very much.

HERBERT: Thank you, Maria. Great to be here.

BARTIROMO: You, too. We'll see you soon. Governor Herbert, joining us.

No announcements yet, but Campaign 2016 seems to be in full swing, and two big names on the trail are making some controversial headlines this past week. Our panel begins right there, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Stay with us.


BARTIROMO: All right. Let's get a look at what's coming up on "MediaBuzz" at the top of the hour, Howard Kurtz joining me.

Howie, good morning to you.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "MEDIA BUZZ": Good morning, Maria.

Well, in mere moments, Bill O'Reilly will be joining me in his first TV interview about the controversy started by the liberal magazine Mother Jones, challenging the way he has described his war reporting. He will respond as well to some criticism from former CBS colleagues. So we're going to tackle that head on.

We've got a pack show after that. But O'Reilly, I figure, is going to be the big news-maker here at top of the hour.

BARTIROMO: We will be there, Howie. Thanks very much. Bill O'Reilly and Howard Kurtz, that sounds like must-see TV to me.

Two of America's biggest political dynasties making headlines this week in the run-up to 2016. Jeb Bush declaring that he is his own man, during his first major speech on foreign policy as he looks to possibly follow in his father's and brother's footsteps.

Plus, we learned that the Clinton Foundation is once again accepting foreign donations, something it stopped doing after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. We want to bring in our panel on that.

Ed Rollins is former principal White House adviser to President Reagan. He has been a longtime strategist to business and political leaders. He's a Fox News political analyst.

Judith Miller is adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist, and a Fox News contributor.

Jamie Weinstein is senior editor of The Daily Caller. And it is good to have you back on the program, Jamie. Thanks for joining the conversation. With you, Ed and Judy, always wonderful to see you.

Jeb Bush says, I am my own man. He had to say something like that because this is the criticism around his campaign, Ed.

ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's fine for him to say he's his own man, but the truth of the matter, he's in front of the pack because his name is Bush. I mean, he's a very capable guy, and he was a governor, but the vast majority of Americans don't know who he is.

And what they want to know is what is he going to do? This is about the future. But at the same time you have to define the difference between what your brother and your father did on the foreign policy apparatus that they had. Many of the same advisers advising him. And what are you going to do? What are your thoughts on what's going on in the Middle East and where you're going from here?

BARTIROMO: So you don't think he is doing that.

ROLLINS: He certainly didn't do it in this speech, and I think he needs to do that.


JUDY MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that was a first foray.  He was setting out themes rather than specific policies. But I'm struck by the extent to which the American people continue to regard both Bush and Hillary Clinton as part of the past.

I mean, 64 percent of Americans polled said that Jeb Bush represented the past. Fifty-seven percent said they would never consider voting for him, and that includes 35 percent of them who are self-identified Republicans.

That's a problem for him. And it's a problem for Hillary, too.

BARTIROMO: Wow. That's extraordinary and.

MILLER: The monarchy problem.


BARTIROMO: And right now the others in the race, I mean, Scott Walker obviously is becoming increasingly attractive to his base and an expanding base.

MILLER: Right, but only -- Jeb Bush is the only leading candidate right now, or would-be candidate who is polling above 10 percent recognition in the national polls. That's not good for Republicans.

BARTIROMO: Scott Walker.

ROLLINS: The only thing I would say is that both Romney and McCain, who ended up being the nominees, had equally large numbers of Republicans that didn't want them, they ended up being the nominee.

At the end of the day it's a two-person card game. Your pair of twos may not look like much, but they beat one-of-a-kind. And I'm not saying that these are two.


JAMIE WEINSTEIN, SENIOR EDITOR, THE DAILY CALLER: The only thing I would say about Bush is that he can't avoid -- as some people are quoting him as saying the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He can't avoid discussing those because you're running for president. All these issues are on table.

We saw a list of his advisers this week, and it didn't really tell us very much, just like his speech, because in that list you have people like Bob Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. They are on the two opposite ends of the Republican foreign policy establishment.

So we didn't learn very much by his list of advisers. They're basically the advisers for the last two Republican presidents, just happened to be both Bushes. And the we didn't learn much from his speech.

BARTIROMO: Well, that's why it was sort of, you know, controversial because he says he's his own man and yet he's hiring some of these people that were working with his father and his brother.


MILLER: But everybody was on that list, everyone.

WEINSTEIN: Yes, they were the two last Republican presidents, so if you're looking for someone who has served presidents in Republican administrations, there's not many people you can look to other than people that worked for a Bush.

BARTIROMO: That is the right point. That's absolutely right.

ROLLINS: And the truth of the matter is, there's really three foreign policies. There's Obama's foreign policy, which is the Democratic foreign policy. There are the two Bushes, and there is some differential between the two Bushes, senior and junior. And you basically have to define what your foreign policy is going to be by admitting their mistakes in the past and how do you fix them? How do you move forward?

BARTIROMO: I think foreign policy will be the number one issue, more so than the economy, arguably.

ROLLINS: It will be a big issue.

BARTIROMO: Hillary Clinton and -- Hillary Clinton stopped taking -- the Clinton Foundation stopped taking donations from foreign countries when she became secretary of state. Now they have started taking donations again from foreign countries. Is this a conflict as she is about to run for president?

WEINSTEIN: It's bizarre that they would do this right now knowing that she is going to run for president. Even just the appearance looks bad.

And what's interesting to me, it's not just that these people aren't just funding charities, their charitable foundation, but the Clintons are using this foundation in many cases to travel.

I mean, they have spent $50 million on travel, the foundation has.  Some of that has gone to private jet trips for Hillary and Bill Clinton around the world. So you have governments like Saudi Arabia who has just given over $10 million to the foundation, funding in some cases the Clintons' travel.

And I think that's a really, troubling, at least in appearances, but I think practically as well.

MILLER: Well, the Saudis gave between $10 million and $25 million.  We don't know how much, but we do know that the Saudis have a view on the Keystone pipeline and so does Hillary Clinton. And one might ask whether or not there's any relationship between a contribution of that size and the position a candidate or a secretary of state or an administration takes.

BARTIROMO: Right. So the question is, does all of this money coming from these foreign countries.

MILLER: Absolutely.

BARTIROMO: . actually dictate policy in America?

ROLLINS: The Clinton Foundation has done many wonderful things. And it was set up by the former president to do meaningful things in his post.  Now as she is going to be a potential president, she has to basically go clean that thing up and look at everything as an opposition research person would do. And right today she's very vulnerable.

WEINSTEIN: But why are they doing this? Because they can get away with it. There has been so much -- little coverage of this in the last several days. If you look at the numbers, someone compiled them, there has been 200 times more coverage, if you take away Fox, who has actually discussed this, about the Clinton Foundation than Rudy Giuliani's comments about President Obama.

Rudy Giuliani is no longer a super relevant political figure. He hasn't been mayor for over a decade. Hillary Clinton is running for president. The coverage disparity I think is pretty shocking.

BARTIROMO: That's a really good point, Jamie. I'm glad you brought that up.

All right. We'll take a short break. President Obama putting a focus on human rights at his violent extremism summit, combating the grievances that terrorists exploit. Our panel reacts to that as we look ahead to that on "Sunday Morning Futures."

Stay with us.


BARTIROMO: We're back with our panel, Ed Rollins, Judy Miller, Jamie Weinstein.

Let me first begin on ISIS, as well as the terrorists Al Shabaab making this new threat, Judy, in term of the Mall of America. What do you think about this?

MILLER: Well, we're going to have threats like this continuously. This is the world in which we live. And we can't panic every time some group makes a threat, because this is how it all started in the very beginning, when Al Qaeda began to make threats that America didn't pay attention to. This time we are paying attention to them and we're doing what we can to counter them.

BARTIROMO: The -- the president, of course, had a summit on violent extremism, Ed, this week. I don't know that anything came out of this, this summit?

ROLLINS: It was -- it was a total waste of time. It was more about a human rights discussion as opposed to a real issue on terrorism. And at the end of the day -- we did this in the Carter administration; we talked about human rights and all the rest of it and got nowhere. This president can't be the -- he is no longer the -- the -- I mean, he needs to be the commander in chief. He needs to basically draw the line in the sand. He's no longer a community organizer. And at the end of the day, unless we basically get firm and strong with ISIS, we call them what they are, then basically we're not going to be serious and be treated serious.

BARTIROMO: I mean, the quote that I read to Michael McCaul and General Richard Myers earlier -- basically, the president saying, look, we need to be tolerant of religions and we need to be, you know, patient -- and -- and then talking about jobs, Jamie...

WEINSTEIN: Well, I -- I think we saw the worldview of this administration in those comments, and also of Marie Harf, the State Department spokesman who went on television and mentioned jobs as one of the key problems of terrorism.

But we know it's not. We know this anecdotally. Osama bin Laden wasn't poor. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda, is a doctor. One of the London bombers had $150,000 in his bank account when he blew himself up in a London bus. But we also know this empirically. Study after study after study has shown that terrorists that engage in this type of violence, Islamist terrorism, are both wealthier and more educated than their democratic peers. Jobs is not the problem.

BARTIROMO: Wow. How does the 2016 race look to you, the -- the playing field, Ed, in light of all of this?

ROLLINS: It's flat open. Obviously, Bush is winning the first primary, which is money. He's doing a very effective job there. Rubio has had a good week or two. Obviously, Scott Walker has had -- but, you know, we've got a long ways to go. And those first three primaries, the caucus in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina shake the whole field up, and that's a long ways to go here.

BARTIROMO: You said that Hillary wants to wait until the summer to declare?

ROLLINS: That's what I'm hearing. And I think, at the end of the -- you know, you basically get yourself in real restrictions when you start declaring yourself as a candidate. You have to worry about your fund- raising. You have to worry about your outside activity. My sense is that's way too long. She needs to get in this game and get in this game quicker.

MILLER: Well, I think that she's being forced to do so simply by the amount of attention that's being paid to the foundation, things that she may have thought were safe. They're not. Everything she does, every speech she gives, every dollar she raises is going to be scrutinized.

BARTIROMO: All right. Real quick, the one thing to watch, in the next block. Stay with us, starting off with you, Jamie, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Stay with us.


BARTIROMO: And we're back with our panel. The one big thing to watch for the week ahead. Jamie, Weinstein, what is it?

WEINSTEIN: I'll be watching the Conservative Political Action Conference. I'll be there watching many of the presidential contenders, kind of, test out their stump speeches. Specifically, Jeb Bush will be taking questions from the audience. It will be interesting to see how he interacts with the conservative crowd.  

BARTIROMO: CPAC usually makes news there. We'll be watching it as well. Judy?

MILLER: I'm going to be watching the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Center and see how long it takes them to do something about Dr. Wei-Hock Soon, who received over $1.2 million to testify that there was no such thing as climate change, which he failed to disclose in many of the 11 papers that he wrote on the subject denying climate change.

BARTIROMO: Wow, we'll look for your writings on that. Ed?

ROLLINS: I'm watching, in the background of the CPAC, are Republicans going to do the right thing, basically, and get this homeland security thing completed? If they basically attempt to shut the government down or have too much rhetoric about it, it's going to backfire on them.

BARTIROMO: All right. We'll watch that as well. And I'm watching -- Janet Yellen has her semiannual talk to Congress this upcoming week, GDP, consumer confidence, a lot happening -- JPMorgan Investor Day as well.

Thanks so much for joining us this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures." I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll be back tomorrow morning on "Opening Bell" at 9:00 a.m. on the Fox Business Network. Have a great Sunday.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.