Sign in to comment!

Menu
Home

Fox News Sunday

Reps. King, Schiff on preventing cyberattacks; can Rick Santorum win GOP presidential nomination?

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," June 7, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I’m Chris Wallace.

It could be the biggest cyberattack in U.S. history. Did Chinese hackers strike again?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Regardless of who it is, and regardless of what their ultimate aim is, the administration takes this very seriously and recognizes it as a threat to our national security.

WALLACE: We'll discuss the breach and what we should do about it with two key congressmen, Pete King and Adam Schiff.

Then, Rick Santorum won 11 states and 4 million votes in the 2012 Republican primaries. This time, can he win the nomination?

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The last race, we changed the debate. This race, we can change this nation.

WALLACE: GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, only on "Fox News Sunday."

Plus, Bruce Jenner becomes Caitlyn. The Sunday panel weighs in on the latest sexual culture war, and also the debate over the female Viagra pill.

And our Power Player of the Week, Bush 41's chief of staff bragging on his boss' behalf.

JOHN SUNUNU, FORMER BUSH 41’S CHIEF OF STAFF: Somebody has to talk about you for appreciation to occur.

WALLACE: All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

U.S. officials are warning millions of federal employees to be on the alert after their personal information was stolen in a massive cyberattack reportedly by China. What makes this especially troubling is it's just the latest in a series of similar attacks.

Chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge has the latest -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Chris, the Office of Personnel Management, also known as OPM, is now the fourth government agency hacked within the last year. And a U.S. official says this dated that breach could affect every branch of government.

And what's more concerning to investigators this morning is growing evidence that it's not an isolated incident, but rather part of a state-sponsored campaign by China that involves the micro-targeting of security clearance information for economic gain, blackmail, impersonation, as well as facilitating future attacks. OPM does 90 percent of federal background investigations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJOR GEN. DALE MEYERROSE (RET), FORMER CIO, DNI: The Office of Personnel Management is a real attractive target because it represents the holy grail of access within the United States government. Even though this is a micro-target, this is a micro-target of probably the most valuable information, and that's what makes this so highly dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Republican Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the breach was, quote, "Yet another indication of a foreign power probing successfully and focusing on appears to be data that would identify people with security clearances."

Former intelligence officials say the attacks’ high level of organization also points to a nation state and the likely backing of Chinese military units such as PLA 61398 housed in this nondescript office in suburban Shanghai. The unit is known for its use of EPTs, or advanced persistent threats, that are designed to harvest information covertly and not cripple system. And that’s exactly what happened at OPM.

Cybersecurity analysts believe it was hacked because it's a softer target than the NSA or Defense Department. One key question is whether intelligence agency employee information was also stolen -- Chris.

WALLACE: Catherine, thank you.

So, how damaging was the attack and what can we do about it?

We’ve invited two congressional experts to answer those questions -- Republican Pete King of New York, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, and from California, Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Gentlemen, I want to take you back to what President Obama said about hacking in February. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The cyber world is sort of the Wild, Wild West, and to some degree, we're asked to be the sheriff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But three months before that, the inspector general at OPM, the agency that was hacked, warned that that agency's computer system was a hacker's dream, which raises the question, Congressman King -- did President Obama fail to safeguard his own administration?

REP. PETE KING (R-NY), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: Chris, we have to get a full after-action report. I don't to want prejudge this, but obviously, something went wrong. Obviously, this is a threat that we have to face and we have to do more than we're doing right now.

Congress has passed two bills. The House passed two bills in recent months, which would begin to address some cybersecurity issues but more has to be done.

I think we have to find a way also to make effective use of all our intelligence and surveillance apparatus, even if that involves the NSA and others, because we're talking about nation states here. Whether it turns out to be China or not, it's certainly a likely suspect. And we have to, I believe, not be afraid to use all our tools to try to stop this, because this could be devastating to our country if this got worse.

WALLACE: I want to pick up on that in a moment.

But, Congressman Schiff, how strong is the evidence that the Chinese were, in fact, behind this? And there are reports this was done to not steal information or identity theft, it wasn’t a crime that in fact this was an intelligence theft, to try to find out who to survey or who to try to recruit as a spy. So, how damaging was the information that whoever hacked into OPM, that they actually stole?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, INTEL CMTE: Chris, it's very valuable information. While we're not allowed to comment on the attribution yet, we've gotten very good at attribution. It’s hard work, but we do it well now.

And there are only two possibilities here with an attack this sophisticated, either a state actor or a group of private hackers who often work in concert with the state. And the motivation, as you pointed out, is either going to be fraud in terms of ripping off people's identity or if it's a state-sponsored attack, it will be personal information that can be exploited to identify people who might be working in the intelligence community, could be used to enable other spear fishing attacks.

And the real challenge I think, Chris, is that in this asymmetric battlefield of cyber warfare, those in the offense have all the advantage. It's very expensive to defend. You just need one open door and you're vulnerable, and you can often attack with anonymity and be free from repercussions. And I think one of the big things that we really have to do in addition to our defense is figure out when we’re going to go on offense and how we’re going to provide a deterrent to future attacks.

WALLACE: Well, I want to pick up on that with you, Congressman King. You kind of hinted at it. Do we need to retaliate against the people that we believe are conducting cyber warfare against us?

KING: I believe we do. I don't think we should announce what we're doing. I think the president and his administration have the capacity to respond once they find out, you know, sort of malware signature, who they believe this is. Then, I think, yes, there has to be a price to pay for this.

Now, how that's done, when it's done, I will leave it to them. You know, all of us have our own ideas, but the fact s nothing should be telegraphed in advance. Nothing should be given as far as notice. I think these countries or these terrorist groups should know there will be consequences when they act this way.

WALLACE: We learned this week through another one of Edward Snowden's leaks that President Obama approved the NSA using warrantless surveillance to pick up international internet traffic of Americans that may be involved in some way in hacking.

Congressman Schiff, you were one of the leaders in the effort to restrict the government's collection of our phone records. Are you OK with this new avenue of collection of information that may involve Americans?

SCHIFF: Well, I oppose the gathering of bulk data by the government because it was unnecessary for us to hold that data. But in terms of this effort to identify foreign hackers, hackers working for foreign states that are going to come in and steal our secrets, that are going to damage our infrastructure or damage our companies -- absolutely, we need to gather that intelligence. It's done under Section 702. It’s done with court supervision.

And I think this is fundamentally what the American people expect of their government. And that is that we ought to be aggressively going after identifying and protecting the country from cyber hackers.

We do need to make sure, though, Chris, in that process if there’s any incidental collection, unintended collected of information about Americans, somebody, for example, a foreign hacker hacks into an American company and steals the information, that we follow all the minimization requirements, and I’m confident that’s exactly what we will do and what we have to do.

WALLACE: Congressman King, of course, this all comes the same week that Congress voted to reform, not to end, but to reform and to some degree restrict the government's bulk data collection of our phone records.

And after that vote in the Senate, you put out this tweet, which I’d like to put on the screen. You wrote, "Today's Senate NSA vote is a victory for America, for freedom over ignorance and defeat for ISIS, Edward Snowden and Rand Paul."

Now, I don't have to tell you, you've gotten a lot of blowback for, some degree, linking ISIS and Rand Paul. Do you want to take this back?

KING: Absolutely not. What Rand Paul did was absolutely disgraceful. Listen, Adam and I, we have difference over the NSA. Those reforms, those changes, they were debated, they were worked on. And the fact is that 99 percent of the Senate wanted the debates to go forward. Rand Paul actually wanted to shut down the NSA for several days, serving no purpose other than for him to use to raise money for his presidential campaign.

That went beyond the limits of intelligent debate, of rational debate, and to me, it violated his position as a senator. We can have differences. We can debate them. We can work them out. You can vote against NSA if you want to.

But to use your one person power to unilaterally shut it down, knowing it’s going to be reopened in several days. So, all he was doing was hurting American security, and at the same time asking people to send him contributions, that was shameful and disgraceful.

WALLACE: Let's turn, gentlemen, to another security or potential security breach, and that is that we learned this week that at the TSA, investigators -- inside people from Department of Homeland Security posing as passengers -- and you see there on the screen, were able to sneak fake weapons and banned weapons past airport screeners 67 times in 70 attempts. That's a 95 percent rate of failure.

Congressman King, do we need to rethink our screening at airports? And I know it's kind of politically charged, but do we have to consider profiling the most likely suspects?

KING: I think we have to consider everything. Let me give Secretary Johnson credit. He moved immediately and he moved, by the way, before this report was made public. He's also reassigned Frank Taylor who was in Homeland Security. He's going to be temporarily heading NSA. He’s a first rate administrator. And then I would urge the Senate to confirm Admiral Neffenger as soon as possible.

But, no, I think we have to see whether or not more technology is needed, more training is needed. Obviously, this failure rate is totally, totally unacceptable.

As far as profiling -- you know, that's one of those hot-button terms. We should be narrowing it down to those who think our most likely and try to do, to the extent we can, what the Israelis do. But it's much tougher in our society. But we have to, again, be more selective.

But, also, we have to make sure the TSA does a much, much better job, profiling, whatever we to want call it. The fact is 95 percent failure rate is wrong. And not just wrong, it's totally unacceptable.

WALLACE: Finally, there was the case this week in Boston of Usaama Rahim, who was killed by police. They say he and another man were plotting to behead someone and also to attack Boston police.

Congressman Schiff, as a top Democrat in House Intelligence, how many Americans, and obviously, we're talking ballpark here, how many Americans are being radicalized over the Internet by ISIS and how do we stop these lone wolves?

SCHIFF: Well, Chris, I think many hundreds are being radicalized. The FBI director acknowledged that we have open investigations in every state in the Union.

This is a real problem. It's a real challenge the use of social media in such a sophisticated way by ISIS is radicalizing those at home. It's not only drawing recruits to try to get Syria and Iraq, that's one thing, but also stimulating these kind of lone wolf attacks here in the homeland.

I will say, though, this on the hierarchy of concerns, my greater concern still is the one you discussed, and that's the airports, because those kind of attacks, unlike what we saw in Boston and Garland, those attacks that could take out an aircraft have the potential of radically changing our country, of decimating an industry, or really changing the way we live, and we have seen through the intelligence that we gather, that remains a top priority.

So, in terms of my concerns, those airports are still at the very top. These ISIS-related social media attacks also a worry, but they’re not likely to change the nature of the country.

WALLACE: Congressman Schiff, Congressman King, a very busy and troubling week on all these areas -- thank you both for joining us today. And we'll stay on top of all these stories.

KING: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Up next, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum makes another bid out of White House. How does the runner-up for the GOP nomination in 2012 stand out this time in a crowded GOP field?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: A look outside the beltway of Des Moines, Iowa. And our next guest won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 and then went on to take another 10 states before losing the GOP nomination to Mitt Romney.

Now, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is making another run for the White House, positioning himself as champion of the working class.

Senator Santorum, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: You’ve -- and I’m going to use this word -- advisedly split with the Republican Party this year, saying that its traditional message is out of touch. Here you are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: We are stuck with a 35-year-old message on the economy. It's a message that says cut taxes for high income individuals, balance the budget, and cut government. And they're right, but it's insufficient in America today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: You say, instead of focusing so much on the business sector, the GOP must pay more attention to the American worker and his or her family.

SANTORUM: Yes, that’s the people --

WALLACE: How would you do it?

SANTORUM: Those are the people, are hurting American. And what I’ve talked about is multi-range (ph).

Number one, we have to create opportunities for the 74 percent of Americans who don't have a college degree, who look at both political parties and they aren't talking to them. How do we create jobs that create opportunities? And I focused on something happened in the last five years in our economy that has created an opportunity to change things. And that's energy.

We now have low, stable energy prices for as far as the eye can see. That is a game-changer to allow us to be competitive in manufacturing. Manufacturing is heavy user of energy, heavy user of natural gas. And now, having those low energy prices allows, if we get our tax situation correct, we get our regulatory environment correct, we get our trade environment correct, we get our immigration environment correct, we can create an environment for American workers to get good-paying jobs and be able to rise in society.

WALLACE: Well, you talk about raising the minimum wage.

SANTORUM: I do.

WALLACE: You're, I gather, quite skeptical of this trade deal the president is pushing.

SANTORUM: I am.

WALLACE: Why?

SANTORUM: Well, first off, it has nothing to do with trade. Secondly, the trade components of it, with primarily lowering tariffs ignore some of the bigger problems, which is nontariff barriers, like for example currency manipulation. Those are things that we have to start looking and doing old style trade deals in a new style world in which the countries use lots of different things to disadvantage us.

I voted for a lot of trade deals when I was in Congress, but I voted against NAFTA. And the reason I voted against NAFTA is because I thought Mexico would manipulate their currency, which they did, and ever since, NAFTA has never been the deal that everyone promised it would be.

WALLACE: One thing that you proposed is replacing the IRS and the current tax code with what you call a fair flat tax. Now, you say that the details, you’re going to roll out --

SANTORUM: We’re still working on it.

WALLACE: -- in a few weeks. But you propose something similar in 2012. I want to ask you about that, because that’s the only thing we’ve got at this point.

SANTORUM: Right.

WALLACE: You wanted only two income tax rates, 10 percent and 28 percent. Tax capital gains at 12 percent. And corporate taxes at 17.5 percent.

Here's the problem: the Tax Policy Center said the middle class, on average, would save $4,000, while the top 1 percent taxpayer would save, on average, almost $350,000. And you would cut federal revenues by 40 percent.

Question: how do you pass, create, impose a flat tax that, one, isn't going to gut the federal treasury, that's going to raise enough money, and, two, isn't going to be a bonanza for the top 1 percent?

SANTORUM: Well, first off, those numbers are based on a static model. That means that nothing is going to change in the economy if you create all sorts of incentives for people to grow the economy and for people to work with lower tax rates. And I just reject that. I mean, that's just a flat earth way of looking at economic growth.

One of the things I believe in is that you --

WALLACE: But if you lower the tax rate, as much as you are for the top, they're going to do a lot better than the middle class because they’re getting a bigger reduction.

SANTORUM: The whole idea is to treat everybody fairly. That’s the reason we’re looking at a flat tax. We'll have provisions in there that make sure that lower and middle income Americans are not going to pay more taxes -- in fact, pay less taxes.

The bottom line is, we have to create growth. You want to reduce the deficit. You want to grow -- you know, you want to grow jobs in America, then you have to do something to create jobs. And that means economic growth. And that’s -- means you create incentives for people who grow the economy.

So, yes, I am -- that's why I said that the Republican message is a good message on growth, cutting taxes, supply side economics, but we have to make sure we orient that growth in areas where people who are suffering in America today, manufacturing, energy, construction, those types of jobs that create opportunities for good-paying jobs for working men and women, that those jobs are created here in America.

WALLACE: You are, I think it's fair to say, and you mention one area where you may disagree with some other Republicans, is you're a hard-liner on immigration. You say not only that we need tougher enforcement, like a lot of other Republicans, but you say, also, that we need less fewer legal immigrants.

Here’s you talking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: Hillary Clinton and big business, they have called for a massive influx in unskilled labor. Business does it because they want to control costs. Hillary does it -- well, she just wants votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, what would you do -- because you don’t answer it there -- what would you do with the 11 million people who are in this country already illegally? And don't you run the risk, as you talk about fewer immigrants and no path to legalization, don't you run the risk of alienating the Hispanic vote, which is the fastest growing voting bloc in America?

SANTORUM: Here’s what I would say that, I approach this as what's the best to American workers and particularly American workers, and particularly those workers who are not doing well in America. And if we look at the fact that 35 million people have come into this country over eh last 20 years, almost all of whom, now I’m talking about legal and illegal, we have more people living in this country who are not born in this country than any time in the history of this country.

So, to suggest we need to look at what is the impact on American workers -- and, by the way, primarily the folks most impacted by new immigrants coming into this country are the recent immigrants who are already in this country who are here legally, and are minority populations, who have high rates of unemployment and are primarily lower skilled workers, particularly the recent immigrants.

So, this isn't a question of I’m being a hard-liner on immigration, this is being in hard support of American workers who have seen their wages over the last 20 years flat-lined. Why? Because supply and demand works. As we continue to bring record number of immigrants, never before we had this number of immigrants coming to this country, and we see wages flat-lining, we see median income falling in America, shouldn't we have a responsibility to look what's in the best interest of American workers and say, let's look at this policy and see whether we can adjust it to make those wages stronger going forward?

WALLACE: Thirty seconds -- what would you do with the 11 million who are already here?

SANTORUM: You just use E-Verify. You require E-Verify --

WALLACE: And no path to legalization?

SANTORUM: No. I mean, look, I’m the son of an immigrant. I’m a son of an immigrant who have to wait seven years, my dad did, before he could come to this country separated from his father. I always used to ask my dad, did you always harbor some ill feeling toward America that separated you, their immigration laws that separated you? And my dad always said the same thing -- America was worth the wait.

America is worth the wait, and workers in American deserve an immigration system that supports them.

WALLACE: Pope Francis will release an encyclical on the environment on June 18th, and you suggested recently that the Holy Father should stay out of the debate on climate change. Here you are.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SANTORUM: The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we do -- what we're really good at, which is -- which is theology and morality.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

WALLACE: Two points -- if he's not a scientist, and, in fact, he does have a degree in chemistry, neither are you.

SANTORUM: I agree. But --

WALLACE: That's one point. And the second point is somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent of scientists who have studied this say that humans, men -- human activity, contributes to climate change. So, I guess the question would be, if he shouldn't talk about it, should you?

SANTORUM: Well, we have to make public policy with regard to the environmental policy. I --

WALLACE: But you're not a scientist. You said leave the science to the scientists.

SANTORUM: But the point is that politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect American workers. Look at the administration is proposing this ozone regulation that will simply shut down any manufacturing expansion in this country. So, yes, there are things that are going to happen here that scientists are going to determine whether we need ozone regulations or not.

WALLACE: And you don’t think the pope has the right --

SANTORUM: But there are political --

WALLACE: You don't think the pope has a right to talk about this?

SANTORUM: The pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about. I’m saying, what should the pope use his moral authority for? And I would make the argument --

WALLACE: Well, he would say he's protecting the Earth.

SANTORUM: That's important but I think there are more pressing problems confronting the Earth than climate change. And I would suggest that, particularly when it comes to me as someone who's trying to go out there and make sure we have a revitalization in manufacturing, to energy production, the things to create jobs and opportunities, that speculative science, which has proven over time not to have checked out, all the predictions that were made 15 years ago, none of them have come true.

So, all of this certainty, which is what bothers me about this debate, the idea that science is settled. Any time you hear a scientist say the science is settled, that's political science, not real science, because no scientists in their right mind would say ever the science is settled.

WALLACE: OK, finally, the FOX debate, I want to talk to you about.

SANTORUM: Yes.

WALLACE: You have complained more publicly than any candidate about the FOX ground rules, which are going to be the top 10 candidates in national polls. And here's the most recent FOX poll. Get on the stage. The others don't. As you can see, according to the latest FOX poll, you're tied for 11th at the moment, and wouldn't make the cut early on, two months to go.

What's your objections?

SANTORUM: When I won the Iowa caucus, I was at 4 percent in the national polls. The idea that we should use a national poll to determine who is going to be one of the final -- one of the finalists in the presidential race, I just think is -- first off, not a good barometer. But most important thing is, we have 16, 15, 14, I don't know who’s going to end up running or not running, really good people. And that shouldn't be something that we should be worried about and try to select down, but we should have the opportunity for everyone to be heard.

And, you know, if you would have taken the top two-thirds of the folks in 1992, Bill Clinton wouldn't have been on the stage. If you’ve taken the top two-thirds in 1980, excuse me, ‘76, Jimmy Carter wouldn't have been on the stage.

The idea that the media is going to go in and select a certain group of people and say, we’re going to make an arbitrary cut-off and those are the folks who are going to lift up, I just think, this is a fluid thing. There’s nobody in the national poll above 10 percent, and we're not leaving Iowa and New Hampshire the role that they need to play. They should be --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: A lot of people would say around the country, we've given Iowa and New Hampshire enough of a role and maybe the nation should play something of a role --

SANTORUM: I wish the case was the nation was making this judgment. I mean, you're --

WALLACE: To a certain -- one could argue, perhaps, they are, by who's got support.

And here’s the other point, you put 16 people on a stage, we're talking about everybody getting four minutes. I was on the stage with you as a moderator back in 2012. And frankly, you used to complain a lot about how you didn't get enough time for questions. Under your plan with 16 people, you're going to get even less time to talk.

SANTORUM: I would suggest you divide it up into eight tranches of eight. You do just a either randomly selective, or take the odd numbers in one n the polling, even numbers in others, you have a nice mix of folks at the top and top at the bottom and you have two back to back debates.

WALLACE: Look at what Carly Fiorina said, which is you've given me a goal, you've given me two months, I’m going to get in.

SANTORUM: Well, but again, is that -- is that what a campaign should be about, trying to measure whether we need some criteria in a debate or whether we should be actually talking to voters trying to convince them that that’s the best -- that we're the best candidate to be the president.

WALLACE: We'll have to debate that.

Senator Santorum, thank you. Thanks for coming in. We'll see you on the campaign trail and maybe on the stage in Cleveland in August.

SANTORUM: You’ll never know. Thank you.

WALLACE: Good luck.

Up next, Hillary Clinton accuses Republicans of deliberately trying to keep millions of Americans from voting, and GOP candidates fire back. Our Sunday group joins the discussion when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What part of democracy are they afraid of?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accusing the GOP, including some of the governors running for president, of trying to suppress the vote of minorities and young people. It's time now for our Sunday group.

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of "The New York Times," syndicated columnist George Will, and Fox News political analyst Juan Williams.

Clinton accused Republicans, some of them, the governors by name, of cutting back on voting and pushing voter I.D. laws to deal with what she called the phantom epidemic of voter fraud. Brit, your thoughts?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Look at the polling on this issue of voter I.D., and it's wildly popular. People do worry about voter fraud. They may be wrong about that, but that's where the polling stands. So why would someone running for president come out and make a big statement like that, against those sorts of procedures? The answer is very simple. She believes she needs to rebuild for her election the coalition that elected Barack Obama twice. And that includes, among other things, very high, exceptionally high percentages of minorities, especially African-Americans. That's the community towards which those remarks were directed, and I think she's seeking to rally them. And that's why we heard her say what she said.

WALLACE: Some of those Republican governors, including John Kasich of Ohio, fired back. And they noted that for all of her talk about the need for early voting, New York state doesn't have a single day of early voting. Here's Kasich.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JOHN KASICH, R-OHIO: To come into the state of Ohio and say we're repressing the vote, when New York has only election day and we have 27 days, come on, that's just silliness, you know?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: I like that. It's just silliness.

Sheryl, taking Brit's point, how effective do you think this effort by Clinton is in trying to appeal and mobilize the Obama base, particularly minorities, particularly young people, and to what degree do you think she was just trying to change the subject from things she doesn't like talking about, like her private e-mails and the big donations for the Clinton Foundation?

SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, NEW YORK TIMES: I think it was smart for two reasons. First, I think she was trying to change the subject. But second, it does appeal to her base. We know that that Obama coalition Brit talked about is very important to Democrats. We saw this in 2014, in the midterms, where there were aggressive efforts in places like Georgia, and Kentucky, North Carolina, to register voters, to get blacks, Hispanics, young people to the polls. It didn't work and Democrats got defeated there. So Hillary Clinton knows she has got to expand that base.

If you look at 2012, it was the first time that African-Americans turned out in greater percentages, greater percentage of eligible African-American voters than whites. 93 percent of blacks voted for Obama. 73 percent of Hispanics, roughly, voted for Obama. I think up to 60 percent or so of young people. So that's what she needs to do. That's the base that she needs to rally.

WALLACE: The interesting thing is, she seems, and this has been noted in the papers, she seems to be running more on the Obama model than on the Bill Clinton model.

STOLBERG: Than on the Bill Clinton model. That's exactly right.

WALLACE: He was appealing more to the South, to white men. She's appealing to the minorities, single women, young people. It's more the Obama model.

STOLBERG: That's exactly right. The other smart thing I thought she did is by calling out all those Republicans by name, she kind of baited them, and a lot of them took the bait. And she'll take that, and she'll probably, if she becomes the nominee, use those clips as ads again to rally her base.

HUME: (inaudible) very good ad for Hillary.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: All right. Meanwhile, there was a curious story in the New York Times this week, on Saturday, about Marco Rubio and his wife, that they had 17 driving violations since 1997. What made it especially curious was that the senator of those 17, Mrs. Rubio, had 13, the senator had only four of them since 1997. So that's about one every four years or something, and none of them were especially serious, which raises the question, George, to use the Times motto, is this all the news that's fit to print?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Before addressing that deep, philosophical question, I should say, although it's not of a particular relevance to this, I have no doubt in the Republican fight, my wife is a veteran political operative and God knows has a mind of her own, is working for Scott Walker.

That said, is this news fit to print? Four traffic violations in 18 years, that is with metronomic regularity once every four and a half years. He gets a traffic citation. The Times wrote this story in a coy way. It's a search of two county's records as revealed leaving the viewer, the reader free to surmise that the New York Times had diligently searched this. It didn't. This was done by a group called American Bridge, which I guess is a Democratic group, which then passed it on I guess to the New York Times, no?

STOLBERG: I'm going to rebut that. Obviously I don't--

WALLACE: It's like a debate. You get 30 seconds for a rebuttal.

STOLBERG: I don't speak for the Times, but you probably saw that our bureau chief, our Washington bureau chief, Carolyn Ryan, said yesterday, in fact, this information was developed independently. It was not given to the newspaper.

WALLACE: Can I ask a question, though? I'll even take all that on faith. Why is it news that he had four violations in 18 years?

STOLBERG: Here's what I would say to this. This is a big Republican field, and a lot of candidates, like Senator Rubio, have not run on a national stage before. But when you run for president, every aspect of your life, and even your spouse's life, is open to public scrutiny. And certainly there have been reports about Columba Bush's jewelry buying habits, we've written reams about Bill Clinton. When President Obama was a candidate in 2011, or 2007, rather, it was reported that he failed to pay his parking tickets for 17 years until two weeks before he launched his presidential nomination. So, this is kind of the game, right? This is what happens. This is why people don't run for president, because every aspect of their life --

WALLACE: Wait a minute, you're saying because of a story like this in the New York Times, that's why people don't run?

STOLBERG: No, I'm saying because every aspect of your life, whatever it is, a parking ticket or a financial misdeed, becomes open to scrutiny. And these are publicly available records.

WILL: (inaudible) await the Times' report on his overdue library books, and meanwhile I think he can stand the comparison, saying he has overdue library books or four traffic violations, and compare that to Mrs. Clinton's siphoning off millions of dollars, in clear conflict of interest and very possible conflict of law.

STOLBERG: Which "The New York Times" has reported on.

WALLACE: That's true. They have reported on that.

STOLBERG: Very, very aggressively, I might add.

WALLACE: All right. Let's not be aggressive.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Former Texas Governor Rick Perry joined the race this week with a strong speech. Here's a clip of him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK PERRY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The truth is, we're at the end of an era of failed leadership. We have been led by a divider who has sliced and diced the electorate, pitting American against American for political purposes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Juan, we watched Perry, and I thought he did very well in his rollout speech, but all of this comes against a backdrop of just a disastrous run in 2012. Can he recover from that? Can he have a second chance to make a first impression? And what do you make of this field? I was counting today, this is what I do in my office, I think there are about 15, 16 candidates who are going to run on the Republican side.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS ANALYST: It's unbelievable. Well, look, for Rick Perry first, he has tremendous name I.D. I think everybody not only on the panel, but in the audience, knows who Rick Perry is, longest serving governor of Texas. And he benefits from low expectations at this point. I think the fact that he had such a bad run in 2012, with his poor debate performances and the like, means that people are kind of looking at him saying, well, can he do better? And will there be another oops moment for Rick Perry? If he doesn't do that, he can do pretty well.

I will say this. I think Ted Cruz is already the favorite son out of Texas, and he's tapped into a very rich vein of money in terms of Texas money donations for political candidates. Rick Perry is going to have to find a way to get that money. And he doesn't have it. So he's involved in retail politics, that is his best hope in Iowa at the moment. And in Iowa, it looks to me like Scott Walker is in the catbird seat. Scott Walker is dominating Iowa at the moment. So Rick Perry comes in, he's going to have to go door to door, and go heavy on his Air Force military background, which is what Republican voters want. But I just don't see right now that I would bet, you know -- bet big money on Rick Perry.

WALLACE: Did you have something you wanted to say briefly?

HUME: I would say he has got some real gifts as a politician, especially as a retail politician. The question is, can he get a hearing? Can he get enough space in this enormous field so that people get exposed to him again, and he has a chance to show really whether he's learned a lot and become more conversant with the issues than he was four years ago.

WALLACE: And we also know how the media plays it, which is when there's a narrative out there about somebody, Dan Quayle, Al Gore exaggerating, if he makes a single slip-up, that wouldn't have hurt any other candidate, we'll be all over it. All right. Whether for good or ill.

We have to take a break here. When we come back, things a little different. We're going to discuss the fight over the so-called female Viagra.

And sharply divided opinion over Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn. And what would you like to ask the panel about the intense coverage of the Jenner story? Just go to Facebook or Twitter, @FoxnewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president does believe that Caitlyn Jenner has shown tremendous courage as she has undergone this transition in a very public way.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, TALK SHOW HOST: Conservatives and Republicans are the new weirdos, the new kooks, and that's part of the political objective here in normalizing all of this really marginal behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: White House press secretary Josh Earnest relaying President Obama's thoughts on former Olympic champion Bruce Jenner's transformation, and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh claiming the left is trying to, quote, "redefine normalcy." And we're back now with the panel.

There's been a fascinating split this week it seems to me about Caitlyn Jenner. Democrats have been praising her as a hero, a trailblazer, while Republicans have been very quiet about it. Former education secretary and conservative thinker William Bennett wrote this this week, "people feel like they're under siege, and that the terms of the debate are, now you either applaud it or you're a bigot."

Brit, what do you make of this rush to embrace transgender people?

HUME: It's part of this very heartfelt drive for acceptance in that whole community. And so this prominent person does this. It's described as trailblazing, but I would have to say I think that trail had already been blazed many years ago, when a tennis-playing doctor named Richard Raskin became Renee Richards, and played in the pro tennis, and was very widely seen and recognized at the time, so it seems to me that bridge has been crossed --

WALLACE: But you didn't have the president though his spokesman, at the White House podium, saying he's a hero.

HUME: That community is a part of the Democratic base, and it makes political sense for the president to acknowledge this -- Caitlyn Jenner in an approving way. It's good politics, I suppose.

WALLACE: We asked you for questions for the panel, and we got this on Facebook from Alice Smith. She writes, "I would like to know why everyone in the media thinks to think Jenner's story is so great and wonderful and worthy of intense coverage." Juan, I was fascinated to learn this week that the World Health Organization classifies trans-sexualism as mental illness. How do you answer Alice and her talk about this rush to embrace?

WILLIAMS: I think Alice is on to something. Alice, you might want to get into the political analysis business, because I think so much of this is a publicity stunt. As I recall, it was 100 million -- is it -- 10 million people Googled Bruce Caitlyn Jenner in the last week, since the "Vanity Fair" cover. You stop and think about not only magazine subscriptions or purchases, but cable ratings. They got a new show, "I Am Kate," coming out, later this month, starring Jenner. I think the New York Post estimated Jenner will make $500 million from media appearances and the like. So this is a big media event, media moment.

I have compassion and empathy for anyone going through what I consider to be a very difficult transition. I am not sure if it's mental health or whatever -- I know that--

WALLACE: Do you think it's a big civil rights issue and movement?

WILLIAMS: If you go into Russia or many of the Muslim countries, these people are not only imprisoned, they are beaten, they are tortured, there is no tolerance whatsoever. And of course in the United States we know about bullying that takes place, especially I want to say, for minority of people who are going through these kinds of issues. So I have some understanding there.

I don't know, civil rights, you know, everybody should have their rights protected. Should it be forced on people? Should people be called bigots in the conservative community because they have troubles with it? At my age, I would be a hypocrite if I told you I don't have questions and I am puzzled, and I think that's why you see so many people Googling Caitlyn Jenner.

WALLACE: George, we've seen in the last decade this astonishing change about gays, to the point that the building just over my shoulder here, the Supreme Court, the nine justices are now considering whether or not there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Are we going to see the same thing with transsexualism? In the course of ten years, something that seems troubling, to some people, or confusing, is going to be the accepted norm and somehow there's something wrong with you if you don't accept it?

WILL: That wouldn't have very little to do with even our litigious society. I'm not sure how you -- maybe under equal protection somewhere, you can find some statutory or constitutional construction that makes a court case out of this.

But meanwhile, usually that happens when someone's a victim. It's hard to see how Jenner's a victim at this point. As Juan indicated, it's a lucrative business, being the victim, if that's what he is. And it's hard to see how we're not defining courage down in this case, because as Brit said, Brit says, it's -- we've been down there before, and it's been done in public before.

Some Republicans were accused this week of relicense about this subject. Now, reticence is a virtue very often, and I don't know why we have to be loquacious about absolutely everything. The president obviously has opinions on everything and a metabolic urge to tell the world about his opinions on everything. But other people are allowed, it seems to me, to remain (inaudible) silence about this.

WALLACE: Sheryl, I want to ask you about another interesting social sexual story this week, and that was an FDA advisory panel recommended approval of a drug to help women with low sexual desire. Some women's groups had launched a campaign to push for this drug. The organization called Even the Score, noting the FDA approved Viagra back in the '90s and saying their approval now or failure to approve would be a statement about sexual equality when it comes to health issues. Your thoughts about this?

STOLBERG: So I think this is very interesting. Issues of gender bias in women's health go back a long way. In the early '90s, President George H.W. Bush, named the first and to date only female head of the NIH, Bernadine Healy, and she promptly insisted that women be included in clinical trials. And founded a woman's health initiative. And those issues of gender bias do persist. But I think what women's health groups would say is that that issue is actually separate and apart from this issue of this, quote, female Viagra. First of all, it's not really a female Viagra. Viagra is a pill that a man can take prior to having sexual relations to increase blood flow, not to get too specific.

WALLACE: Erectile dysfunction.

STOLBERG: This pill is a pill that a woman would take on a daily basis to address imbalances in the brain. So, it's really not a female Viagra.

HUME: Is it an aphrodisiac?

STOLBERG: It's actually was an antidepressant originally. To address psychological symptoms. But in any event, some women's health groups say that the FDA is basically being pressured into approving a pill that really isn't safe for women, that we don't know enough about, that the risk/benefit ratio isn't a good one, and in fact the FDA advisory -- the FDA has twice rejected this pill before. So there's a split among women's health groups, and I would note that the Even the Score group, which has been pressing the FDA to approve this, is financed by the drug company that is making the pill. There's a real debate about this. And I think some would say, if there really were a female Viagra, it would be a great advance in women's health, but this pill maybe isn't it.

WALLACE: Very interesting. Thank you. Thanks, panel. See you next time. I got nothing more. I got nothing.

WILLIAMS: You can't just go force this on women.

WALLACE: I knew something stupid was going to get said here. And it just did.

Up next, our power player of our week. A tribute and some surprises about Bush 41 from his White House chief of staff and long-time friend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: This week a poll found George W. Bush now has a higher approval rating than President Obama. And a former top official is reminding people about his father, the first President Bush. Here's our power player of the week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN SUNUNU, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: He really never liked to talk about himself. His mother told him not to brag, and that seemed to be his hallmark through his whole career.

WALLACE: Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu is talking about Bush 41, a president he served as White House chief of staff. Sununu has written a book called "The Quiet Man," as he puts it, to brag on Bush's behalf.

SUNUNU: He's underappreciated because somebody has to talk about you for appreciation to occur. And he's been unwilling to do it for himself for so long.

WALLACE: You say that President Bush was more conservative than Ronald Reagan. Really?

SUNUNU: In terms of what he accomplished, yes.

WALLACE: Sununu points to Bush's domestic record, including a budget deal that broke his "no new taxes" pledge. But with $3.50 of spending cuts for every $1 increase in the gas tax.

SUNUNU: That's why he sent his bill up, and we'll continue to try and urge Congress to pass -- to send him a bill, pass a bill and send him a bill that he can sign.

WALLACE: You were generally seen as the bad cop, the abrasive guy who had to say no. How do you plead?

SUNUNU: I plead guilty. I woke up every morning knowing that I'd have to catch a few spears and arrows that were directed at George Bush, and I took that as part of my job.

WALLACE: And Sununu is still doing that in the book, unloading on people he thinks betrayed the president. Like Newt Gingrich, who he says agreed to the budget deal, but then skipped the announcement.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As any such plan would have to, ours requires that virtually everyone contribute in some way.

SUNUNU: When everyone went out of the Rose Garden, he slunk out of there and decided he was going to oppose it. So basically when he said it was acceptable to him, he was lying.

WALLACE: And Supreme Court Justice David Souter, also from New Hampshire. Sununu assured Bush he would be a strong conservative.

Do you think that Souter deliberately deceived both you and the president?

SUNUNU: Yes, I do. That's why I'm so upset. Because he sold himself and had lived himself as a conservative until he got the appointment he wanted. And then his true colors showed, and he shifted left.

WALLACE: When you look back at that beautiful white building, what are your thoughts?

SUNUNU: It was a privilege to be there. It really was.

WALLACE: Now at age 75, Sununu says he gives advice to all the candidates coming to New Hampshire. But so far at least he is not backing anyone, including Jeb Bush. No, his real passion now is to make sure Bush 41 gets his rightful place in history.

BUSH: He predicted the Berlin Wall would last another 100 years. And today, less than one year later, it's the wall that's history.

SUNUNU: Moving Soviet Union to its dissolution so fast without a shot being fired was not as easy as it looked. And solving the budget problem the way he did was not as easy as it looked. I think it was an extraordinary presidency by a man willing to spend all of his political capital for the sake of the country.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: By the way, President Bush celebrates his 91st birthday this Friday. We wish him and Mrs. Bush all the best.

And that's it for today. Have a great week and we will see you next "Fox News 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.