This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," March 8, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good morning. The deadline ticking on Iran. Hi, everyone. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."
Prime Minister Netanyahu says, plain and simple, he sees a bad deal coming with Iran. President Obama says he heard nothing new. But did the White House hear enough to push Iran for more? Senator John Barrasso is with me, and our former top Arab-Israeli negotiator George Mitchell, both joining us this hour.
We'll also ask Senator Barrasso about Hillary Clinton's emails, the Select Committee on Benghazi asking for all of the former secretary's correspondence relating to Libya. We'll explore what's next.
And notice it's costing you more to fill up your gas tank. Could striking steel workers be to blame? Now, reports that some union members are crossing picket lines. What it means for your bottom line, as we look ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures."
Democrats in Congress say they will give the president until March 24th to strike a suitable deal with Iran before siding with their Republican colleagues and pressing for further sanctions, this despite a push this past week by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to fast-track Senate approval was rejected by Democrats and after Benjamin Netanyahu's fiery speech before Congress insisting the deal as it stands is a bad one.
John Barrasso is chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. He is also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And, Senator, it is good to have you on the program.
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, R-WYO.: Thanks, Maria, great to be with you.
BARTIROMO: Assuming the deal being talked about right now includes Iran continuing to enrich uranium, is it a bad deal?
BARRASSO: That's my concern because I think people all around the world know that a world where Iran has a nuclear weapon is a world that is less safe, less stable and less secure. And my concern is the president is so eager for any deal that he will go with a bad deal. That's why I think it's critical that the Senate approve this like we do any treaty.
And, by the way, we should point out that it's not just the Americans who are concerned, but the Arab states in the region are also concerned. You've spent time with the former king of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, and have heard first-hand about the concerns that the neighboring countries are talking about the fact that Iran supports Shiite Muslim groups in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon's political and militant movement, Hezbollah?
BARRASSO: I was in -- I was in Saudi Arabia earlier this year visiting with the leaders there, including the current king. And the discussions always go back to Iran with a nuclear weapon and the nuclear arms race that will now follow because, if Iran has a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia wants one; Egypt will want one; Turkey will want one; the Arab Emirates will want one. So we will see a significant escalation of nuclear arms worldwide.
BARTIROMO: So what's the realistic timetable on dealing with Iran, do you think? I mean, this March 24th deadline and then the June deadline -- how do you see this playing out?
BARRASSO: Well, I think we need to put sanctions back if they don't hit this deadline. Sanctions are what brought Iran to the table in the first place. They need the money for their economy and also for their appetite. You know, they're funding efforts in Yemen. They're funding Hezbollah, Hamas. Even money goes to Assad in Syria from Iran. So anything we can do to withhold that money, I think, holds their feet to the fire.
BARTIROMO: All right. I want to talk more about this, Senator. Stay with us. A lot to get to with you, Senator Barrasso. But first, crunch time fast approaching in these nuclear talks with Iran. Will a deal be reached by the end of March or will Tehran instead be hit with brand-new sanctions?
Fox News's senior correspondent Eric Shawn joins us with that angle. Eric, good morning to you.
ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Maria.
And good morning, everyone. The Senate could start considering a bill tomorrow that would require the president to submit any agreement with Iran to Congress. But others worry that won't nearly be enough.
FORMER MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI: The Ayatollah is a maniac. Here's another way to say it. He's insane.
SHAWN (voice over): Never one to mince words, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani joined other U.S., European and Canadian officials, along with more than 20,000 protesters in Berlin, warning against a pending bad deal with Iran, the rally sponsored by the largest Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, declared that Western powers should not give Tehran any daylight to build a possible bomb.
MARYAM RAJAVI, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE OF IRAN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The mullahs came to the negotiation table out of utter desperation. But the policy of appeasement has emboldened the mullahs. Such a feeble (ph) policy amounts to encouraging fundamentalism. So Western powers must end it.
SHAWN: Well, the proposed deal does reduce the level of uranium enrichment that would be needed for a possible nuclear weapon and takes other measures and it also increases some inspections by the U.N.
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: All of our partners are consistently exchanging and sharing information, sharing ideas, working together, meeting and helping to try to drive this to the good conclusion that we want.
SHAWN: But critics charge it does not dismantle one single centrifuge. Some facilities would still be off-limits to U.N. inspectors and Iran's ballistic missiles -- well, those remain untouched. And the deal with that sunset clause could end in 10 years.
GIULIANI: The minute they become a nuclear power, Saudi Arabia does. Egypt does. Jordan does. And then you are going to end up with a real conflagration in -- in the Middle East.
SHAWN (on camera): Well, the White House and other supporters say an imperfect deal is better than no deal at all. Well, in 16 days, we should learn how good or bad the deal is, if there even is one. Maria?
BARTIROMO: All right. Eric, thanks very much. Eric Shawn with the latest there.
More now with Senator John Barrasso. And, Senator, are you poised to say increase the sanctions against Iran unless we see a commitment to stop supporting terrorists around the world, as well as stopping the enrichment of uranium?
BARRASSO: Yeah, absolutely. I want to make sure that any deal is accountable, enforceable and verifiable. I'm ready to vote and I'm ready to vote for or against, depending on what the deal says.
BARTIROMO: All right. Let me move on to Obamacare. You attended the Supreme Court oral arguments for King v. Burwell this past Wednesday. You are a medical doctor for 25 years. What's your sense of the current playing field in terms of the Supreme Court looking at Obamacare?
BARRASSO: Well, the Supreme Court has asked whether the president has acted illegally in having the IRS send subsidies to people under the president's health care law. The question in front of the court is does the law mean what it says or does it mean what President Obama wishes it says? And it has to do with the subsidies that go out.
Maria, I was in the Wyoming state legislature all of the time. Legislation comes from Washington and says, "If you want the money, you must do this."
And the health care law says to states, "If you want people there in your state to get subsidies, then you must set up a state exchange."
Now, that's what the Supreme Court will decide in about 3 1/2 months. Sylvia Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, has said the administration has no plan B; they have made no plans for if the Supreme Court rules against them. But Republicans are ready with an opportunity to provide temporary transition and help for people that have been hurt by the law. We want to protect the people but not protect the law if the Supreme Court rules against the administration.
BARTIROMO: And, of course, this case is one of the year's most important news subjects with the potential to roll back that portion of ObamaCare. It seems to me that the states would like to run their own health care system the way they see fit and it's hard to really put a brush stroke one way on all of the states when you have got different states with different strengths in terms of health care and not all should be the same.
What's your take in terms of the states handling their own health care?
BARRASSO: The states ought to be the ones making the decisions about the individual mandate, the employer mandate, all of the different requirements of what kind of insurance people have to have. Whenever Washington makes a one-size-fits-all decision, it doesn't work in states all around the country. So the Republican proposal is to give the states more flexibility and freedom and choice and therefore give the people in those states those additional opportunities to actually get the insurance that works for them so that they can get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs and buy the insurance that works for them, not what President Obama says they need.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, it makes a lot of sense, and that's what we have heard time and time again from various governors who have joined us on this program. Let me move on to Hillary and the -- and the emails scandal here, sending all of her emails from her private email during government business. There is a big security issue here. But what is your -- what strikes you about this story?
BARRASSO: Well, whether what she did is legal or illegal, it was wrong. And I believe her whole email system was set up deliberately so she could hide things. So I want to see all of the emails, not just the emails that she has so far released because you don't know what else is out there. What did she delete? What did she destroy? And also who else saw these? Maria, from a national security standpoint, did spies see these? Did hackers see these? So, what is she trying to hide?
And the Democrats right now are scrambling because they have all their eggs in the Hillary political basket for 2016. But this is just a continuation of the conflicts that stick to the Clintons no matter where they go.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, but will you really be able to get all the emails? I mean, the server was in her home.
BARRASSO: Well, there is going to be obviously efforts by the Republicans to get those but I believe the press is going to want to see those, as well. She has been pretty much blocking requests for information on her emails for an extended period of time even under the Freedom of Information Act so I think there is going to be an increasing cry to release emails that will play into the presidential campaign. And we will never know, never know if we get them all. They will always be that continuing doubt about what she is hiding.
BARTIROMO: Senator, thanks very much for joining us today. We'll be watching.
BARRASSO: Thanks for having me, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Senator Barrasso there.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech firing stirring up a lot of partisan heat. But does it also pressure the White House to push for a tougher deal with Tehran? Former Senator and diplomat George Mitchell is on deck.
I hope you will follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo @SundayFutures. Let us know what you would like to hear from Senator Mitchell who is coming up next live. Stay with us as we look ahead on Sunday Morning Futures.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Obama reacted to Mr. Netanyahu's speech on Iran by saying it offered nothing new. But even some Democrats are conceding the Israeli prime minister's critiques has added to an already heavy burden of persuasion on the White House.
Former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, was the chairman of the Mitchell Commission on the Arab-Israeli conflict back in 2000. He was also U.S. special envoy for Northern Ireland from 1995 to 2001. And it is an honor to have you on the program today.
GEORGE MITCHEL, FRM. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Thank you, Maria. Thanks for having me.
BARTIROMO: Thanks so much for joining us.
Good to see you.
So the aim of the negotiations is to persuade Iran to restrain its nuclear program in exchange for relief from these sanctions. Do you believe the deal that is being talked about today would do that?
MITCHELL: Well, we don't know what the deal is. And we will have to wait until an agreement is reached if one is reached. It's still about 50/50 before we can make a final judgment on it.
I do think that the prime minister helped himself in his re-election campaign in his appearance for congress, obviously. I don't know what the ultimate effect will be there.
I think he also has made it, he has emboldened the opponents to the president in the congress, giving them I think some substance and assurance making it more difficult for the president. But in the end it will depend mostly on the verification provisions in the agreement that we're about to reach, about 50/50 that will be reached.
BARTIROMO: Well, I mean, wasn't it important, though, for him to embolden the critics? I mean, putting his reelection aside for a moment, you talk to even the Arab nations in the surrounding areas who are all concerned by the fact that Iran does support terrorist groups like Hezbollah and has been continuing this enrichment of uranium which ultimately will lead to a nuclear bomb.
MITCHELL: There has been a long-standing, centuries old, animosity between Persians and Arabs. There is nothing new about that. When I was in the region and met with the Arab leaders the first thing they said was you have got to attack Iran. They would like us to bomb Iran. That has been the case for a very long time.
So, is this circumstance their interest aligned with that of Israel? They don't ordinarily, but they do in this case. So, there is absolutely nothing new about that.
There was one report that -- which I don't know if it is true or not, was reported that when the hangman placed the noose around Saddam Hussein's neck the last words spoke were damn the Persians.
So, that's a conflict of ancient origins going on for a long time, absolutely nothing new that the Gulf Arabs are opposed to the Persians who are also Shi'a while the Arab states are Sunni so there is a double edge to that conflict and would like the United States to bomb Iran.
BARTIROMO: What about these sanctions? Let's talk about the idea that there are a fair amount of people in congress who would like to increase the sanctions against Iran.
MITCHELL: Yes. Almost everyone agrees that the reason Iran is at the table is because the sanctions are having a crippling effect on their economy. The reason the sanctions are effected are due to the fact that they are universal.
These are not unilateral U.S. sanctions, China, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, the countries joining with us in the negotiations are enforcing the sanctions, as well. The United States senate could increase sanctions to the sky but if those countries don't go along the sanctions go from effective to ineffective and that's what will happen.
These five countries are in the negotiations with us. If they with us reach an agreement with Iran, they are not going to join the sanctions, join the senate and the congress in upping the sanctions and the sanctions will effectively be undermined.
So, those who argue let's have the congress pass a law increasing sanctions ignore the reality of the situation that if the sanctions become unilateral they become ineffective.
BARTIROMO: This is a very, very important point.
So what is the best way to get Iran to slow down this enrichment process?
MITCHELL: Iran is a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation agreement. Under that agreement the parties, one of which is Iran, have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The ayatollah and the president of Iran say that Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon.
The problem is that the actions of their government contradict their assertions. There are today nine nuclear powers in the world. There are dozens of countries that have the capability of producing nuclear weapons who voluntary refrain from doing so because they know it's in their best interest not to make nuclear weapons. Iran is -- should be in that category.
The question really is, do the leaders of Iran have the commonsense to understand that their national interest lies in not making nuclear weapons although they should be able to produce nuclear power for peaceful uses?
BARTIROMO: And you think they understand that?
MITCHELL: The question -- well, I think they understand it, but these people have judgments based on ideologies and other factors that they don't judge them in the same context that we do.
That is the real challenge. And I agree there is a danger they are getting a weapon to produce proliferation. The problem is rejecting a reasonable agreement even if it's not absolutely 100 percent perfect is more likely to produce a nuclear armed Iran than less likely.
BARTIROMO: Senator, great to have you on the show today. We'll be right back. Senator George Mitchell.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
It is day 36 of America's largest oil refinery strike since the 1980s. Enough steel workers have walked off the job to potentially disrupt 20 percent of the total oil refining capacity which could be one reason why gasoline prices have been rising.
But there are reports that now some union members at a Texas refinery are crossing the picket lines to return to work.
Elaine Chao was the longest serving secretary of labor since World War II from 2001 to 2009.
Secretary, great to see you again. Thanks so much for joining us.
ELAINE CHAO, FRM. LABOR SECRETARY: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: So, let's talk, first, the steel worker's strike and the impact of this. We know that it has had an impact on the price of gasoline and oil, Elaine. But what is your broader take away from this steel workers strike?
CHAO: You know, I think the timing of this is not especially a advantageous for organized labor, because the economy is still rather mixed. And if you take a look at Friday's unemployment numbers, even though the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5 percent, lots of other economic indicators are still quite soft. For example, initial claims filed increased., it went over the 300,000 threshold mark which is usually a mark as to the quality of the improvement of the economy. And secondly productivity gains dropped. GDP growth in the last quarter was negative 2.2 percent. And so there are lots of things happening in the economy that does not bode well for a long extended strike, because there is still slack in the recovering job market. And if you look at the labor participation rate it is quite low.
When I was secretary of labor the average labor participation rate was about 67.7 percent, now it is 62.8 percent. And in a workforce of 150 million people that percentage point means a lot of people who have left the workforce because they have become discouraged and they are no longer looking for work.
And that is why the unemployment rate is dropping.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, I think you make a great point because, you know, we see the numbers coming out every month from the Labor Department and the headlines appear to be getting better, that more jobs are being created.
But when you dig deeper and you see the labor participation rate continuing to go down and wages having a tough time having not moved in a long time, what is going on that is creating these challenges for the jobs market?
CHAO: I think it is very, very puzzling. And I think one of the other reasons, we need to look at the seasonal adjustment factors. You know, about -- when the seasonal adjustment formula was put in place 40 years ago our economy was very, very different. It was primarily manufacturing, construction. So over the winter months construction employment fell, manufacturer employment fell because car plants, automobile manufacturers shut their plants in January.
So American employment numbers fell by 10 percent during the winter months. Now, because we are so increasingly a service economy, during the winter months seasonality doesn't impact the employment numbers that much as it did before and the American employment numbers dropped only about 2 percent during the winter months.
So we need to be looking at how seasonally adjusted numbers can be better refined and look at the quality of the seasonal adjustment, as well. I'm not saying get rid of it, but for transparency sake, for investors on Wall Street and for investors overall, we perhaps should be releasing two numbers. One is the actual raw data as to how many -- what has been the actual employment - - unemployment numbers for the month and then release seasonally adjusted number as well.
They currently do that with the initial claims filed. So it should not be too much of a stretch for them again to offer the raw unemployment numbers, the gains and losses and the seasonally adjusted. That would give investors a much better view for what is the true dynamics of the workforce.
And it is happening so quickly. Seasonal adjustments are annually based. But, you know, investors decisions are made so rapidly we should be at least looking at it from a monthly basis, as well.
And so, these are some of the other complicating factors that are kind of impacting on the quality of our assessment of what is really happening in the labor market.
BARTIROMO: Well, it seems that businesses are hoarding cash once again. They are not investing in CAPEX, which we were expecting, and they are not, you know, hiring as much as you would like to see because of the uncertainties around the expense side of the business: the cost of ObamaCare, the uncertainty around taxes. It is hard to believe that companies will start increasing the workforce in large numbers with benefits when you have all of those uncertainties out there.
So, where are the jobs right now from your standpoint? Where do you see employment opportunities?
CHAO: Well, most of the jobs, as we just saw in the monthly reports after monthly reports are increasingly in the service sector. And this means that the wages are not as high as they -- in the...
BARTIROMO: Like hospitality, restaurants, things like that.
CHAO: Absolutely. And also what is happening is that older workers are leaving. It's about one quarter of the labor participation rate decrease is due to 25 percent of, you know, basically older workers leaving.
But when they leave at a higher salary and new workers come in at a lower salary, that would also add to the low salary overall that we are seeing in the service sector.
So what we are seeing now is that our economy is increasingly complicated and information technology, hospitality, health care all these service sectors are increasingly important.
But a worker that is more educated, more skilled is going to have a better time at finding a job in this economy because our overall economy is increasingly knowledge-based.
BARTIROMO: And that means consulting legal work, a lot of business services.
It's great to have you on the program, secretary. Thanks very much for joining us.
CHAO: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Secretary Elaine Chao there.
President Obama telling CBS News he is glad Secretary Clinton wants her emails released because his White House is the most transparent in history. That's his quote. Our panel starts right there as we look ahead on Sunday Morning Futures.
BARTIROMO: Since the news broke that Hillary Clinton solely used personal email while secretary of state, there have been questions about her inevitability as the Democrat's presidential nominee.
Now, take a look at this latest Fox News poll taken March 1 through March 3, just as the news of the emails was starting to break. Her, quote, honesty ratings have virtually flipped from what they were almost a year ago.
We want to bring in our panel on this. Ed Rollins is former principle White House adviser to President Reagan. He has been a long-time strategist and business and political leaders associate and he is a Fox News political analyst.
Judith Miller is adjunct fellow at Manhattan Institute for policy research. She's a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist, and a Fox News contributor.
And Mary Kissel is a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. She hosts Opinion Journal on WSJ Live.
Good to see everybody. Thanks so much joining us.
Let's talk about the Hillary emails. What is your sense of this?
ED ROLLINS, FRM. REAGAN ADVISER: You know, the Clintons always seem to not play by all rule. There's no one in government that doesn't have to play by certainly rules, and certainly as secretary of State she should have had her emails supervised and protected by the State Department. And why she did this is just beyond me, and I think to a certain extent one more knick in the inevitability armor.
BARTIROMO: I mean, the issue for me really has been security. I mean, you're secretary of state. Who is seeing those emails?
ROLLINS: Well, we have seen stories today about China and everybody else having the ability to tap into that. And obviously in the State Department, and the government, you have and ability to protect some of that.
JUDITH MILLER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: But also why are we finding out about this two years after she left office? I mean, did she ever send President Obama one of her private emails from her private Internet domain from her private server in her private home? I mean, did the White House - - was they not aware that this was going on?
And there is just this sense that Hillary plays by different rules than the rest of us. And in an era where we are trying to talk about the plight of the middle class this does not bode well.
BARTIROMO: Yeah. And Mary, they keep saying -- I mean, the Obama administration says they are most transparent administration ever?
MARY KISSEL, WALL STREET JOURNAL: And let's remember, too, that this is the second scandal in the course of a month surrounding the Clintons. Remember, you also had the Clinton Foundation scandal where they are taking money from foreign governments while Hillary was Secretary of State. Still haven't gotten an answer on that one.
It is absurd to think that Hillary Clinton does not appreciate the rules of the State Department or the importance of the security of documents. Look at all of the other scandals over the years that revolved around documents that mysteriously disappeared and they were suddenly discovered at a convenient time.
But you are right, it seems as if she plays by different rules. Last thing I'll say, look at how she responded. She said I want the public to see my email. Her email? She was a public servant.
MILLER: But she wanted the State Department to release those emails, she said. She is in a position to release them.
BARTIROMO: Do we know that if in fact we will see all of the emails given the fact that the server was in her home?
ROLLINS: No, you won't know that. But, you know, the thing that amazing me is she has been running for president for eight years now. The Clintons are very smart people politically, and why they didn't basically start going through this stuff and thinking about how it could be played against me. There are going to be 20 candidates out there on the Republican side, and every day they are giving them more and more ammunition.
BARTIROMO: The idea that this administration is the most transparent ever, Mary, one of the editorials in the Journal this weekend really struck me and that was the Keystone copout op ed. And one of the lines here from the editorial board, nothing Obama says to justify his pipeline veto is true. That is an aggressive statement.
KISSEL: It is fact. When he talks about number of jobs created, when he talks about where the review is of this pipeline, none of it is true. That is correct.
BARTIROMO: And the amount of jobs that are U.S.-related versus -- I mean he keeps saying the oil that is going to go through this pipeline is Canadian oil and it's not going to impact the U.S.
KISSEL: Right. But this is a larger problem. Look for example at how the administration is characterizing Iran. We will talk about that later but they talk about Iran as a moderate country with a moderate leader. That's not true either.
You can go right down the list but as you say at least when you are talking about Keystone you have to take everything he says with a big grain of salt.
ROLLINS: This pipeline was purely a throw out to the environmentalists. It would have been very beneficial to the American economy and it would have been very beneficial to energy independence long- term, would have created jobs and it would have been a safety issue. This oil out of rail cars, which is very unsafe, and my sense is this president blew it.
BARTIROMO: And we have seen a number of derailments this week.
I want to ask you all if you think all of these issues around the e- mails, around the Iran deal are actually going to hurt Hillary's chances. Let's leave that for a second. We want to check in on "MediaBuzz" and Howie Kurtz to see what is coming up at the top of the hour before we get to all of that with our panel.
Howie, good morning to you.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "MEDIABUZZ": Good morning, Maria.
We will build on your segment by looking at the media coverage of Hillary and the email controversy. Many liberal commentators even being critical of former secretary of state. But I have also got an in-depth interview with Rand Paul on his battles with the media, why some are trying to tie him to the positions of his father, Ron Paul, and whether he is liberally provocative in order to get headlines and whether he has too thin skin when it comes to press criticism.
BARTIROMO: All right, we will be there. See you in 20 minutes, Howie, thank you.
Meanwhile, Secretary Kerry meeting with European colleagues this weekend in Paris, saying they are united in getting the right deal with Iran. Our panel with that as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" next.
BARTIROMO: We are back with our panel, Ed Rollins, Judy Miller, Mary Kissel and we were talking about Hillary as we went to a break. My question was will it actually hurt her chances, this email scandal?
What do you think, Ed?
ROLLINS: Well, I think it is a pattern. I think she is still the inevitable Democrat nominee.
I don't think can be viewed as the inevitable president anymore though.
KISSEL: I don't think that she's inevitable. I don't think that she's competent. She did not run a great 2008 campaign. We have had a lot of scandal surrounding her. She did nothing when she was secretary of state.
What's she going to run on?
MILLER: I think she is superbly qualified. She's held every job. She doesn't have the George Bush or Jeb Bush problem, what have these people actually --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She has got the Clinton problem.
MILLER: -- but she has the Clinton problem, which is, I think in many ways, worse.
ROLLINS: In fairness to the Bushes, they were both governors, two- term governors in both cases. That's pretty significant.
BARTIROMO: It sure is. All right.
Let's talk about Iran and the dealings that we are seeing here. The point of these negotiations is to lower Iran's enrichment capacity.
Is it going to work?
ROLLINS: I don't think so. I think at the end of the day John Kerry and this president so desperately want a deal that they will take anything. I think it is critical that the Congress have some oversight view of this. And if it's not, it's probably the most important decision this president's going to make for the long term security of that Middle East.
BARTIROMO: George Mitchell made an important point, I think. That was the leaders of China and Russia and European countries, they also have to go along with increased sanctions.
You are nodding your head, Mary, what?
KISSEL: With respect to Senator Mitchell, I disagree with him. The United States is not respected around the world. We're not feared around the world. President Obama does not have currency with the leaders of our major allies in Europe.
Senator Mitchell seemed to imply we should accept the world the way it is instead of trying to shape it. If France and Germany and the U.K. respected us they would also respect increased sanctions.
MILLER: I think that Senator Mitchell is right about sanctions. Sanctions is an alternative to military action or a deal, only work if you can get everyone to go along. And that, Mary (ph), was the point that he was making and it is very clear given the pushback we are already getting on the sanctions that exist that if our allies think this is a good deal, we are not going to be able to continue sanctions.
BARTIROMO: But they are supporting terrorists. They are supporting Hezbollah.
Shouldn't they be punished for that?
MILLER: These issues are separate from the overriding important issue of whether or not Iran is going to be permitted to get a bomb.
ROLLINS: Bad behavior has been rewarded by this administration whether it's Cuba or anybody else. Nobody has made a change. Since the shah fell, this country has been our number one enemy. They captured our embassy staff. They held them for 444 days. They have sponsored every bit of terrorism around the world for the last 40 years.
For us to basically reward them by allowing them to get a nuclear weapon -- which they will -- whether it's five years or 10 years or whatever --
KISSEL: And Congress can't see it.
ROLLINS: And the idea that John Kerry who failed in the Middle East so desperately wants something on his resume beyond being senator is what scares the daylights out of me.
MILLER: Program for nuclear weapon began under the shah, before the Islamic republic.
ROLLINS: The shah was our ally then.
MILLER: Can this agreement defer and delay the Iranian program?
That is the important question.
KISSEL: First it was no centrifuges and now it's 6,000. Now additionally we are going to legitimize Iran as the nuclear power ignoring that Rouhani is not a moderate, as the administration likes to portray him. He has presided over an immense crackdown on the people of Iran. He has an American in jail in Tehran.
Ultimately Obama said he wanted to bring Iran into community of nations. But there's no imperative to do a deal today. He is choosing to do a deal today, and he is not choosing, by the way, to share it, the details of it, with Congress. He is simply asking Congress to accept it.
BARTIROMO: That is the most extraordinary thing. The most important decision that the world faces in Congress is not a part of the plan before it is actually written up as a deal.
MILLER: Congress can do a great many things. For example, they can authorize in advance military action if Iran is caught cheating on an agreement. There are many --
BARTIROMO: -- U.N. inspectors haven't even been given the access to actually do the checks.
MILLER: Actually, they have been given much greater access than they have ever had before under the interim agreement, which Bibi Netanyahu opposed and which Israelis say now is not such a bad thing.
ROLLINS: We are a shared government. Republicans and Democrats alike in the Congress have an obligation to look at this agreement. This is the most important agreement we will have for the rest of the administration. The potential is there for it, if it's not done well, for another world war in the Middle East. And I think every word in this thing needs to be -- Kerry wants a deal so bad he can taste it.
BARTIROMO: Exactly. We'll take a short break.
The fate of ObamaCare back in the Supreme Court this weekend. The justice's decision impacting subsidies for some 7 million Americans. We will take a look with our panel next.
BARTIROMO: Back with our panel. We're talking now about ObamaCare, but before that, you wanted to make a point on the Iran negotiations.
MILLER: Yes. And I think Bibi got a lot of pushback from the former head of Mossad, his intelligence agency, who severely attacked his speech in the United States and said that basically Bibi Netanyahu had misrepresented what the intelligence community of Israel thinks about the Iranians and their nuclear bomb program . It's a very serious charge that Bibi's going to have to deal with --
BARTIROMO: I'm glad Bibi Netanyahu came.
ROLLINS: He was a tour de force. And being perfectly honest, I wouldn't care what John Brennan says, the CIA director. So my sense is the leaders of the country, he came here, he made his points and I think they were effective.
BARTIROMO: I agree. I think they were effective.
Real quick on ObamaCare, Mary Kissel. The states should be allowed to decide how their health care goes and yet now we're in the Supreme Court with the ObamaCare decision.
What's your take?
KISSEL: This is a clear case, the text of the law is clear. Subsidies only go-to exchanges, quote, "established by the states." So if the Supreme Court reaches a different decision, that is a political decision out of the justices. It has nothing to do with the legal text of the law.
BARTIROMO: Why would they go that way? They didn't go that way the last time.
MILLER: And they didn't go that way because ultimately the Supreme Court is a political body in addition to being a judicial body.
MILLER: And do think that they understand that scuttling the president's program that is providing health care to 10 million Americans who didn't have it before is a really radical thing to do. I'm not sure how they're going to go on this, but I do know that the Republicans still haven't presented a coherent alternative to this plan.
BARTIROMO: I think it's really sad to say that the Supreme Court is a political animal.
ROLLINS: It was set up as one of the three branches of government. It is very, very important. And now that you're giving credence to the Supreme Court, maybe you'll give credence to the Congress.
BARTIROMO: -- Ed Rollins, love it.
ROLLINS: I think the bottom line is Kennedy and Roberts are the two justices we have to worry about. Otherwise we're split. If one of them go with the liberals, it will be as we said here, the law is very clear and obviously it's now a decision that has to be made.
KISSEL: And I think the irony is that Chief Justice Roberts wanted to present himself not as a partisan, as a fair arbiter and I think that's in all likelihood why he made that first ObamaCare ruling, thinking that it would satisfy the Left because he came under a lot of pressure, well, guess what, you're seeing the same pressure from the political Left today saying Chief Justice Roberts, don't look at the law, think about the broader implications.
ROLLINS: And there's also a little backlash on the Right towards the Supreme Court chief justice.
BARTIROMO: Quick break and then one thing to watch for the week ahead with our panel, next.
BARTIROMO: Back with the panel. Big thing to watch for the week ahead.
Mary Kissel, what are you watching?
KISSEL: I'm going to watch Democrats in Congress to see how they change their behavior after Bibi's speech. They had a little bit of a hissy fit after he spoke but I think they will come around because they will come under a lot of pressure to review this Iran deal.
MILLER: I wanted to see whether or not Hillary Clinton is going to be bombarded with subpoenas for information about those emails, her foundation practices and other things that are now beginning to become real issues.
ROLLINS: I'm going to watch Bibi's re-election, hopefully his reelection. I think that's very, very critical to the peace in the Middle East.
BARTIROMO: I don't think the speech helped his re-election.
Do you? That's what George Mitchell said.
ROLLINS: I think it helped him here.
BARTIROMO: Helped him here?
KISSEL: No love lost with the Israelis and Obama. So it may actually have helped him.
MILLER: The electorate is very divided in Israel. It's a tossup.
BARTIROMO: Thanks, everybody. Great to see you. Happy Sunday. That'll do it for "Sunday Morning Futures." I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for joining us today. I'll see you tomorrow on the Fox Business Network, "Opening Bell," 9:00 am Eastern. Have a good 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.