Chaffetz talks US relationship with Iran; Perry touts border security record

Negotiators expected to reach interim agreement


This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," July 12, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


A nuclear deal with Iran could reportedly come today.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Maria Bartiromo.

Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."

Word of this deal coming even as Iran's leader is calling the United States a, quote, "excellent example of arrogance."

The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, is with me this morning.

Then, immigration -- the hot topic issue taking over the 2016 campaign trail. I'll sit down with Republican candidate Rick Perry and hear how he plans to secure the borders.

Then, the Greek prime minister says he's ready for compromise just hours before the latest deadline. That amid reports that Greek banks have barely enough cash to get through the week. We'll talk with Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget.

We're looking ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures."

Breaking news right now in a possible Iran nuclear deal. The Associated Press reporting that negotiators are expected to reach a provisional agreement today, with an official announcement coming Monday morning.

They are citing a pair of anonymous diplomats. They say the parties are still ironing out the final details, which all seven countries would need to sign off on.

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz is with us.

He is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Congressman, it's good to have you on the program.

Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Every time I see news that a deal is -- is happening and is about to take place, I question what is different now than six weeks ago, three weeks ago, when the two sides could not come together?

Are you expecting a deal with Iran tomorrow?

CHAFFETZ: Well, all the signs certainly point to that. But I hardly this this is a good deal for the United States of America. Iran gets both billions of deals and the ability to develop its nuclear program.

Why would we strike such a deal?

I -- I -- I don't think the fundamentals have changed. Iran is still one of the great sponsors of terrorism. They are causing havoc throughout the world, both in Yemen, with Israel, for Saudi Arabia. They've been threatening to the United States of America.

Why would we do this?

It makes no sense to me.

BARTIROMO: Yes, at this point, John Kerry is saying look, I threatened to walk away from this deal on Thursday, because there are some very important sticking points that remain. One of those is the fact that the Iranians want those sanctions lifted, even before the ink is dry. And they do not want U.N. inspectors coming into their country and checking what their nuclear capabilities, in fact, are.

Are those two issues still the main sticking points?

CHAFFETZ: Oh, absolutely. You have to have full, total and complete ability to verify. It's what President Reagan said, trust but verify. I don't trust the Iranians. And so if you don't have full and complete unfettered access to those facilities 24-7, then this is not a deal we should be making, because Iran with a nuclear bomb, is one of the greatest threats to the world's safety and security. This is not in the best interests of the United States of America. It is not in the best interests of -- of the world's security.

And so if you can't get to that, why would we -- we give them -- make them flush with money, of literally tens of billions of dollars?

BARTIROMO: Yes, by lifting those sanctions.

I want to get your take on why the Iranian leadership is calling the U.S. so arrogant.

So stay with us on that.

A lot to talk about with you this morning, Congressman.

But first, does Secretary Kerry's optimism really mean there is an actual end in sight for these nuclear talks in Vienna, particularly as the rhetoric from Iran gets even sharper?

Fox News senior correspondent Eric Shawn now with that angle -- Eric, good morning to you.


And good morning, everyone.

As we have been reporting this morning, a preliminary deal will likely be in place today and officially announced tomorrow. After two years and three blown deadlines. Secretary of State John Kerry, at this weekend, sounded optimistic.


JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We still have a couple of very difficult issues and we'll be sitting down to discuss those in the very near-term, this evening and into tomorrow.

But I -- I think we have resolved some of the things that were outstanding and we've made some progress.


SHAWN: Well, it's been a familiar refrain, but now there are indications an agreement is forthcoming despite some remaining differences.

One key sticking point has been Iran's defiance in blocking United Nations weapons inspectors from its military sites, like Parchin, where it's suspected nuclear bomb explosives research has been conducted.

But reports now say that could be bypassed through what is being called managed access to military facilities. Tehran also demanding lifting those United Nations Security Council embargoes on arms and its growing ballistic missile program, something the West has resisted.

Others, though, point out that for now, the interim agreement keeps sanctions in place and Iran's nuclear program somewhat in check.

But whatever comes out of Vienna still faces the endorsement of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali-Khamenei, who continues to attack the U.S. in his speeches as arrogant.

And Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran's parliament and a former nuclear negotiator, says Teheran's strategy has been, quote, "withstanding the enemy." By that, he means us.

As "Investors Business Daily" bluntly notes, quote, "The foremost terrorist state has succeeded in outmaneuvering, exhausting and intimidating its negotiating opponents into division. With or without the bad deal feared, Teheran has won. These talks are out of control and there is no telling how bad an agreement could end up."

Well, if an agreement is announced tomorrow, it still faces two months of a review by Congress and it seems clear that whatever is agreed upon could still face an uncertain reception, both back in Teheran and on Capitol Hill -- Maria.

BARTIROMO: All right, Eric, thanks very much.

Eric Shawn.

Back with Congressman Jason Chaffetz right now.

And Congressman, let me ask you about this -- this period here, because if an accord is not reached by the end of Thursday, then they've got to invoke the 60 day Congressional review period during which the president cannot waive those sanctions on Iran if they meet the target. And that review would be 30 days.

Tell me what that 30 day review by Congress looks like.

CHAFFETZ: Well, I don't think there is an appetite in the Congress, neither in the House nor in the Senate, to actually bend over backwards to give anything to Iran. We have them in a very difficult place. To loosen up those sanctions would give them literally tens of billions of dollars, I don't see the imperative to do that.

They are a threat, Iran, to the -- to the world's safety.

So I -- it's a very tough gauntlet to run, having to go through Congress.

BARTIROMO: What are the implications of no deal?

I mean let's say, at the end of the day, a deal does not happen tomorrow, which, of course, the headlines keep saying that we are that close, that it could be tomorrow. But I have such a hard time believing it.

What are the implications of no deal?

And then I want to ask you about the implications of a deal?

CHAFFETZ: Well, no deal seems to be the better path for the United States of America, because we do have some tight sanctions on them. We do -- we can continue to keep them in a box and try to keep them away from -- from nuclear capability.

But if they were to get a deal, I worry that it's a pathway for them to develop their nuclear thing -- their nuclear program. That's exactly what the Iranians have always wanted. They wanted time to develop this nuclear bomb.

You'd have to be totally and completely naive to think that Iran doesn't ultimately want a nuclear bomb.

BARTIROMO: So what do you do, just not even consider this country as ever doing business, once again, with world powers?

CHAFFETZ: No, of course we can do business. But you tighten the sanctions. You make it more difficult. You don't -- you don't -- we're in a great negotiating position. We hold a lot of these cards.

But to bend over backwards and suddenly start giving them tens of billions of dollars and not be able to fully and completely and totally be able to look at their nuclear program 24-7, that -- why would you do that?


CHAFFETZ: They -- they're -- they have threatened the world. We've got to believe them.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Not to mention the new oil that would come on the market.  I mean there are so many implications if, in fact, we were to see a deal.

Congressman, good to have you on the show today.

Thanks so much for weighing in.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz there.

Presidential candidate Rick Perry spoke with me earlier about the Iran nuclear talks, as well.

Here's what he said.


GOV. RICK PERRY,R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They are exporting terrorism and until we know with clear definition that that's not going to occur, I think we're wasting our time.

This is an issue that the president just wants a deal. He doesn't care whether it's a bad deal or not. And we're seeing time and time, you know, pushing back deadlines. And, again, Russia wants them to buy their weaponry. That's what is at the -- the center of this conversation right now.


BARTIROMO: More with my conversation with Governor Perry on the Iran talks coming.

And the former Texas governor also sounding off on immigration reform. He, of course, ran the state with the longest border with Mexico.

What is his plan?

Hear more from Governor Perry next.

Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Former Texas Governor Rick Perry now more than a month into his presidential campaign, bringing the issue of border security to the forefront. Perry says he's the best candidate to improve our safety at the border.

So what are his plans to do it and his other visions for the White House?

Governor Perry joins us now to discuss it.

Governor, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for joining us.

PERRY: It's a honor to be with you, Maria, thank you.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk first about immigration and your plans in terms of securing the border.

PERRY: We've been dealing with this for 14 years as the governor of Texas.  That's a 1,200-mile border over the course of the last four, five years.  We put upwards of a billion dollars of Texas taxpayer money. You know, I always like to remind people, this is not the state's responsibility; it's a federal responsibility and now we've had this administration totally and absolutely not doing their constitutional duty.

So last summer we reacted to the president clearly not going to be able to assist us in this state and the country for that matter and we deployed our National Guard; we also had our Texas Ranger recon teams, our Parks and Wildlife wardens literally in the river in their boats.

Having personnel, having strategic fencing and the one thing that's really missing, Maria, is the aviation assets that we need to put in the air looking down 24/7 from Tijuana to El Paso to Brownsville, that 1800-plus mile border, and identify when suspicious or clearly illegal activities are going on with quick response teams at that particular point in time when you intervene in that way, you can secure the border.

We can do this in a relatively short period of time and I will suggest to you substantially cheaper than building a wall.

BARTIROMO: Why haven't we done it already then if it's that simple?

PERRY: Well, this is the lack of will out of Washington, D.C., Maria.  This is what we've been standing on a mountain top screaming for five years that this is a federal responsibility and when we have seen time after time them fail, or in even worse case spend all of this money say we've put more people, more money on the border, and you know what, that's true. They just have them in the wrong place. They've got them back 45-50 miles in an apprehension position rather than on the border in a prevention position.

That's the lack of understanding what this country needs is just shocking to me. We know how to secure that border. We just don't have the will in Washington, D.C. to do it.

BARTIROMO: Governor, obviously the comments on immigration and Mexicans from Donald Trump continues to reverberate and have massive implications by people distancing themselves from him.

Are you seeing Donald Trump's comments as a taint on the Republican Party?

Is he taking down the entire party?

PERRY: Well, I see the Democrats making that as an issue and them trying to paint everybody with a very broad brush, you know. I think we won't paint all Democrats as being untrustworthy, if that's going to be the tactic here, as Hillary Clinton is trying to paint all Republicans with Mr. Trump's response.

We need to bring this country together and this president for six and a half years has divided us by gender, by economics, by race. And these highly disrespectful terms that get used, we need to reel those back.  We're better than that.

BARTIROMO: You gave a speech last week at the National Press Club and I want to ask you about it because you said there are ways that the GOP can earn and deserve the support of black Americans.

What did you mean by that?

PERRY: Well, I think admitting where we've been wrong in the past is a great first step and I did that in that speech. But I also talked about the results of economic policies, tax policy, regulatory policies, education policies that really matter.

When you see that African Americans in Texas have substantially better position in life economically, educationally because of the policies we put in place, then that's hard to argue against. The Left is going to try to, you know, glance off of this and try to deflect and try to get you to look behind or not look behind the curtain, but the point is there are real results in the state of Texas.

There's real results where you give economic freedom, where you give educational opportunities and African Americans and Hispanics in particular should really look at the Republican Party for the future of their best interest.

BARTIROMO: Let me get your thoughts on the U.S. economy because once again we see two steps forward, one step back; the jobs numbers last week were just OK. Wages really haven't moved.

What's your plan in terms of creating jobs, Governor?

PERRY: I think people are really concerned about what they see from a tax side, from a regulatory side. We're just few good policies away from the best days this country ever had. I think it's attached to our energy policy, North American energy policy, Canada, United States, Mexico developing all those energy resources.

Couple that with driving down the corporate tax rate. We got the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world. You lower that 10 percent and every accountant worth their salt will tell you that you will raise wages by 5 percent to 10 percent.

So blue collar workers, the union member out there ought be saying, you know what, Perry, we'll vote for you because you'll raise our wages. You couple those two together, drive down the cost of electricity, give incentives to those individuals on the manufacturing side to come back into this country, we can have the most extraordinary renaissance in manufacturing in this country that we've ever seen.

BARTIROMO: Governor, good to have you on the program today. Thanks so much for joining us.

PERRY: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon, Governor Rick Perry joining us.

PERRY: So long.

BARTIROMO: Coming up next, Greece making a last ditch effort to reach a bailout deal. We have breaking headlines right now. Maya Macguineas (ph), the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will join me next on Greece and the Eurozone and Hillary Clinton.

We're looking ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a moment.




BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Greece fighting for its economic future in Brussels this morning where discussions are resuming after hours of talks yesterday ended without any breakthroughs.

Greece is trying to convince Eurozone creditors that it will follow through on its promise to make major economic reforms in exchange for a new three year bailout.

Greece's creditors want proof that Greece will, in fact, implement tough austerity and reform packages before giving the country any more money.  This comes amid new reports that Greek banks may not even have enough cash to see the country through the week ahead.

Maya MacGuineas joins us right now. She is the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Maya, always wonderful to have you on the program. Welcome back.


BARTIROMO: Angela Merkel just making comments this morning. We are getting the headlines. She says the most important currency has been lost in these talks and that is trust and reliability. Clearly we are at the same place that we were a week ago, Greece pushes back, creditors want more. How do you think this plays out?

MACGUINEAS: Well, I think it's true that trust has been lost and it's the result of really botched negotiation on many sides, but it's been a terrible process of negotiating where as a result the Europeans don't even know whether the Greeks will actually be able to deliver on whatever parts of an agreement they come to.

Now, clearly all sides are losing as a result of this because as time goes on the Greek situation has gotten worse. The measures that will have to sbe taken to get the economy back on track, both fiscal and economic, have become more difficult. And everybody is going to come out of any deal that they come out with, assuming they get a deal, having to have given up more than they would have if they did this before.

And so it is unfortunately a sad story of a really terrible negotiation where sides no longer trust each other and the people of Greece are at odds in some ways with their own government based on the referendum that happened.

BARTIROMO: That's absolutely right.

And I guess what i really want to see is what is the impact on the U.S.?

This story, Maya, is moving so fast the headlines crossing every few minutes with new developments out of Brussels. The Fox Business Network is actually going to be changing its coverage. They will be going live, bringing our audience the latest developments because it will be so impactful to markets tomorrow.

So on Fox Business Network we'll get the very latest.

What's your take in terms of the impact on the U.S., Maya?

MACGUINEAS: Well the markets -- we have crazy things going on markets all around the world, right, from Greece to China and there is no denying that what happens across the oceans has huge effects on our economy.

And there are also lessons to be learned. Because I think part of the tragedy of what we see in Greece that has gone from an economic tragedy to sa humanitarian tragedy is looking at when you wait too long to implement reforms that need to be made, both fiscal and economic, to promote growth, when you wait too long to do that your choices become fewer and fewer.

And right now the Greek people are left doing it. They are going to have have to make changes to their tax system and to their pension system and they are going to at a time where people are already suffering and that may be at odds with what's needed to help grow the economy. So you can get in a vicious cycle.

I think one of the lessons, of course, here where we are struggling with a debt challenge that in no way rivals what you see in Greece, but is on a similar path in terms of its unsustainable is make changes while you can, make changes while the economy is doing well and is -- can tolerate some of those reforms that you need to make so you're not forced to by markets or creditors when things are really difficult.

And I think for many countries that are facing debt problems of their own, again not close to where Greece is, but on bad paths, this is the lesson of what you don't want to have happening because there's so much more unnecessary suffering when you make those reforms then there had to be if you get out ahead of the problem.

BARTIROMO: And just to be clear, Greece owes $355 billion. And what they would love is debt forgiveness, that they don't have to pay the bills. And of course the Eurozone creditors can't do that because that sends a message to Italy, to Portugal, to everybody out.

But if they extend the maturities out 20, 30 years, cut the interest rates maybe, this becomes manageable for Greece to actually pay the debt back.

Meanwhile, there's China. You just mentioned it, Maya. Last week a wild week in China. The government stepped in, said that trading in half of the stock market in Shanghai would be shut down trying to intervene so the markets stopped plummeting there even though it's still up over the last year and a half.

What is going on in China and what's the impact to U.S. markets as well?

MACGUINEAS: Right. Again now this is a huge market, obviously the Chinese market is a tremendously slarge stock market and would have effects around the world. That said, it's not as directly related to their underlying economy as it would be in some cases. So, the markets has had a huge run up. The plummet has been scary. And yet they are still up from where they have been in the past.

I think what sort of is troubling is watching the major interventions that came along from the Chinese government trying to prop up the market which have been clumsy at best. And I think to go back to Greece also what you see is the challenges of -- with Greece you see the challenges of trying to build a whole European Union. In China we see the challenges of trying to move towards a market based economy. And there are ugly bumps along the road, and because our markets are all intertwined, they do have large effects on the U.S. economy.

I think what we're going to see is that there's no stability coming out of Europe or Asia right now and at a time when the U.S. is struggling, one, that puts more pressure on us. It will have negative economic effects on this country but it also means we will continue to look like the strongest economy that can really be the engine of global growth.

But, again, I think the big lesson in China is intervening to prop up a stock market is not the right way to go. At the moment, it's very scary what can happen to the new Chinese savers who are getting into the markets.  But you may just be creating another bubble. And really you have to make sure that your markets are at more sustainable levels and not have the government jump in for political reasons whenever things -- the road gets rocky.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, that really creates uncertainty there.

Maya, let me move on, because Hillary Clinton is going to making her first major economic speech of her campaign tomorrow morning. We are told, Secretary Clinton is going to focus on wage stagnation saying that it is her top goal to raise median incomes for average Americans, raise their salaries.

We know wages haven't moved in seven years. Will she be able to walk this balance of saying we need to get wages up, even at a time that she was in an administration, Obama's administration, where wages actually went down or stayed flat.

MACGUINEAS: Well, I think that this is a very important priority. I think there are two major priorities we're going to hear from the presidential candidates on the economy and one is to grow the economy, and two is to have that growth be shared in a way that wages start to grow for the middle class where they have been so stagnant.

This is indeed -- these are indeed the right priorities. I think we'll see differences between the candidates of how they balance those two, and certainly on the specifics of how they get there.

And the really the tough piece of this, and I hope everybody will listen to the presidential candidates closely on this is, it's hard to know what policies promote growth and promote wage increases. I think we're going to need to look at a host of things from growing the competitiveness in this country which will take regulatory and tax reforms, looking at the public investments and which ones has the highest returns so we have deficits in investment from infrastructure, education, basic R&D.

But I really think looking at worker retraining to help our workforce become more competitive is a piece of this, because wages won't go up unless our workers become more able to be more productive. And I think they can be. And I think that's a key to look at it.

We need to look -- and I think she's talked about this -- to go away from the short-termism in the capitalism to longer. Deal with our debt problems and we need a comprehensive economic plan.

I look forward to hearing the specifics.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, she's also going to talk about making sure corporations think long-term. And there is some speculation that she is going to once again go all the way to the far left and talk about Wall Street being bad and regulations needing to go higher.

When you're looking at higher regulations and the idea that growth is most important can the two exist together, higher regulations and actual growth?

MACGUINEAS: Well, sure. There are smart regulations and then there are a lot of really not smart counterproductive regulations. So, it is going to depend on which regulations we're talking about.

But I think freeing up corporations and there are a variety of things we are going to have to look at to do that to look more at the long-term, have their investors be more in line with that, and to build sa structure where investing in your workers can increase their productivity and increase the bottom line is going to be key for that

We've seen some companies from Aetna to Gravity Payment starting to look at different ways to increase the wages of their workers.

The key is showing that that wage increase funnels back into the bottom line of the company, because it needs to be good for growth and good for wages. I don't think more regulations will be the key, as much as changing and aligning a lot of our interests and both from the investors, the workers and the managers.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will see if Hillary touches on all of that tomorrow.

Maya, great to have you on the show.

Thanks so much.

MACGUINEAS: Nice to be with you.

BARTIROMO: Maya MacGuineas there joining us.

Securing our border is fast becoming a hot button issue for the upcoming presidential election. You've heard one GOP candidate's plan.

Now hear from the outspoken Donald Trump on the matter.

Our panel is next, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

We just heard from former Texas Governor Rick Perry laying out his argument on border security. Follow -- following the presidential hopeful, Donald Trump's comments, as well, addressed the topic in a pair of speeches yesterday.

We want to tell you about this speech that Trump made, because he is accusing Mexico of deliberately sending criminals to the United States while also professing his respect for the country's leadership.

I want to bring in our panel right now.

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

Julie Roginsky is a former political adviser to Senator Frank Lautenberg and a Fox News contributor.

And Gary Kasparov back with us. He is the chairman of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation. He is a chess grand master and the former world chess champion.

Good to see everybody.

Thank you so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Trump made comments yesterday, he is not backing down at all from his comments on immigration.

Compare what he's saying to what you just heard from Governor Perry, Judy?

JUDITH MILLER, FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH: Yes, one is presidential, Perry. And the other was just a rambling tirade that is vintage Trump unplugged, full of statements that weren't true, full of incendiary remarks, playing to our anxious darker side, as opposed to the Reagan morning in America side of us.

I continue to agree with Peggy Noonan, a conservative columnist who says that blowhards don't wear well. And I think that the current blip of per - - of popularity will diminish as his exposure increases, if that's possible.

BARTIROMO: But Garry, look at the crowds at this speech in Phoenix. He is bringing in people. I mean you talk about, you know, what he's saying and at the same time, people -- look at where he is in the polls.

What's your take?

GARY KASPAROV, CHAIRMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION: No, I think he has been doing great damage to his party. He is stealing headlines. It's quite easy now. I think everybody wants to hear some big news. And he has very strong statements.

It's populist. It's not based on any calculation. He doesn't care. And this boldness wins support at the early stage.

But it will -- I mean he will -- he will disappear. It's not a matter of him staying in the race for a long time, it's a matter of how much damage his presence for these few months will cause GOP at a later stage.

BARTIROMO: Another thing that he said, Garry, the U.S. has driven Russia and China together, he told the crowd.

KASPAROV: Well, it's -- I mean I agree with him on one point, that Putin doesn't respect Obama. But I mean Iranians and whoever, Chinese, I don't think anybody in the world, any world leader, respects Obama today.

But the solution is not to become pals with Vladimir Putin, as Trump suggested. Probably his dream is to become another Putin's oligarch so he can do it without running for the U.S. presidency.

BARTIROMO: Unbelievable.


BARTIROMO: Julie, how do you feel?

JULIE ROGINSKY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: -- with the latter part about trying to become, yes. He has a lot in common with Putin. They both know how to, you know, use graft to get their way, tax (INAUDIBLE).

But he -- look, he attracts a lot of crowds in the same way that real housewives of New York would attract a lot of crowds when they're flipping tables. He's a reality show star.

He is not really there because he's running for president, he's there because he's a brand. He's obviously decided this is going to help the Trump brand. He's going to take his valuation from X to X times two.


ROGINSKY: And that's what he's doing.

BARTIROMO: You think that's what it's about, the Trump brand?

ROGINSKY: Oh, my goodness. He's not got no -- he has no intention...


ROGINSKY: -- of staying in this presidential race. He's going to milk it for all it's worth to up the brand and to up his value. I mean...


MILLER: But Julie, it hasn't. Look at what's happened to his relationships, with Macy's, with NBC...


MILLER: -- with Univision. This is what strikes me as a pretty...


MILLER: -- bad business strategy...


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- he miscalculated, but it was absolutely a business decision. Some -- much (INAUDIBLE) casinos in Atlantic City. It was a very bad business decision that he made, but nevertheless, he still made them.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about Governor Perry for a second.

Your observation on the interview right then.

KASPAROV: I think an excellent interview. I was very impressed by his campaign opening speech. I think he has a lot of ideas. He's talking about the future. He made some excellent points not only about border control, but I liked what he said about Tesla and about car dealers in Texas. I think it's very important for the GOP to stand for the free market and to go against trade unions, car dealers, anybody who is trying to restrict trade.

So overall impression, I think extremely positive. He is, you know, he has the vision. And I hope that the debate between the candidates will be sort of hold within these parameters.

BARTIROMO: Was he a frontrunner?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Oh, I think he is. I mean I don't know whether or not he's going to make it into the top 10 this time. I assume he will, as the longest serving ex-governor of a major state. But, you know, the difference between the Perry before and the Perry in this round is just dramatic. And also, his willingness to take on Donald Trump, call his remarks offensive and not reflective of the Republican brand, I think that's very brave.

BARTIROMO: You're nodding your head.

You agree?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am. And it's interesting, because I think governors of Texas have a very unique perspective on immigration. You never hear that kind of jingoism from them. You never heard it from George Bush when he was governor of Texas and even when he was president. You don't hear it from Perry.

And I think it's because they've got the experience of dealing with the border, but also with a huge Latino community in their own state. And that's, you know, you can't...


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- you can't demagogue the issue when you've been living it for all these years, as Governor Perry has.

KASPAROV: But I also think it's very important for GOP, actually, (INAUDIBLE) from negatives to positives. It's not the only illegal -- about illegal immigrants. It's about immigrants.

I'm a legal immigrant.


KASPAROV: And I know how difficult it is to get a green card even for the former world chess champion and...


KASPAROV: -- political (INAUDIBLE).

And I have friends in this sort of valley who kept losing talent because these Chinese or other -- Asian students couldn't get work visa after graduation.


KASPAROV: So it's -- yes, we have to think about those who are, in desperation, trying to pick apples in this country, but we must pay attention to those who can create a new apple.

BARTIROMO: Such a great point, Garry. I'm really glad you made it.

All right. We've got to talk about Hillary. Big, major economic speech tomorrow. But first let's get a look at what's coming up at the top of the hour on "Media Buzz".

Howie Kurtz standing by. Howie, good morning to you.

KURTZ: Hi, Maria. Speaking of Trump, we'll look at how the Donald is utterly dominating the media coverage, even as some pundits, including some on your panel, are dismissing him as a blowhard. Hillary's new media strategy giving that first national TV interview to CNN. And we're also going to take a look at Bill Cosby's fall from grace. He's now undermined by his own words under oath. I've got an interview with one of his many accusers. Why the media didn't believe her and also what she thinks should happen to Cosby now.

BARTIROMO: What a story. All right, Howie. We will be there. We'll see you in about 20 minutes. Howie, thank you.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton expected to unveil her new economic plan on Monday morning. Speaking of money, there is a whole lot of fund-raising going on. We'll see who is raking in the most money as yet another Republican gets set to enter the 2016 field. Our panel sticks around. You should, too, as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Hillary Clinton holding her first national interview last week after literally holding reporters at rope's length away from her as she took part in a parade in New Hampshire.

Mrs. Clinton has held a strong lead over the Democrats, but it seems she is being beaten pretty hard in fund-raising as Jeb Bush nearly doubles her earnings in his short time since his campaign began. He's raked in a whopping $114 million between his campaign and SuperPACs. That compares to Hillary Clinton's $69 million combined.

Other strong showings, Senator Ted Cruz with $52 million, since being the first to launch a 2016 campaign. And even Senator Bernie Sanders surprising analysts with $15 million.

We're with Judith Miller, Julie Roginsky and Garry Kasparov this morning. You guys surprised at how much money Jeb Bush has been able to take in?

ROGINSKY: Not in the least. I mean, Jeb Bush has his brother's Rolodex; he's got his father's Rolodex. He's a former governor in his own right. And he's unified to some extent the money guys here in New York. And so for that reason I'm not surprised whatsoever.

BARTIROMO: But a lot of people felt like Hillary was going to be runaway with the money earned?

MILLER: I think that's what's surprising is that she has not raised that much relative to expectations.

ROGINSKY: But I'll tell you why. She hasn't raised as much because, as always, there's a lot of drama going on in Hillary-land...


... between the SuperPAC and the 527s and the Clinton campaign. And so, as a result, Priorities USA is not raising the money that it needs to raise and Jeb Bush's SuperPAC is, and it's the same old drama that always follows this whole cabal, which is the reason that she's not doing what she needs to do financially.

KASPAROV: With so many candidates, you know, such a broad field, investors are always looking for a safe bet. And Jeb Bush looks like a safe bet. I stick to my opinion. It's a disaster for the GOP. He's the only candidate Hillary Clinton can beat. The GOP can win only if you talk about the future and Jeb Bush cannot be an agent of change.

Even if he tells you the great story, nobody will listen because he's Bush. His family kills him. So the name, the family name. So I think, if Bush is winning the nomination, I think the GOP will be dragged into a debate about the past.


KASPAROV: And the media, the liberal media, will have the best -- the dream target to attack.

BARTIROMO: Interesting that you feel that way because a lot of people wonder if Clinton has the same problem. She's got the Clinton name.

KASPAROV: But Bush will (inaudible) the problem. Yeah, that's -- it's -- I believe that any candidate who can come up with a good comprehensive vision of the future from the GOP side will beat Hillary Clinton, except Jeb Bush.

ROGINSKY: But, in fairness, the Clinton name is very popular because Bill Clinton is the most popular living politician. George Bush, not so much.



KASPAROV: But the GOP needs two things. One, you have to energize the base. Jeb Bush cannot do that -- the GOP base. Second, you should not present, you know, an open target for an attack from the liberal media. And Jeb Bush is perfect, not because of him but because of the family story.

It's, again, you can't help -- people will -- even the good people that would like to hear the message, the moment they see Bush pronouncing it, they'll stop listening.


Julie, let's talk about Hillary's campaign speech tomorrow. Because, apparently, we're being told that she is going to say her top goal is raising median wages, that she's going say, "Look, we need to make sure that people's salaries go up."

Is she going to be able to balance that as her top goal when she was in the Obama administration and didn't necessarily talk about wages being under pressure and the Obama administration has been unable to move wages?

ROGINSKY: Well, first of all, she was secretary of state; she really couldn't talk about domestic policy, so that's an unfair knock on her. She couldn't do it even if she wanted to.

She's going to have to separate herself from Obama to some extent on this issue because income inequality has grown under this president, I'm sorry to say. She's also doing this, I think, to pre-empt Bernie Sanders, who's been making huge strides and getting a lot of attention for the income inequality aspect of his campaign.

And so what she's trying to do is, I think, circumnavigate him and make sure that he doesn't get the left and people to be so overly -- she doesn't want him to push her too far to the left, but she needs to do it enough so that she actually has a campaign where she continues to be the front-runner and he's not nipping at her heels.

He's doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire. That's -- that's -- she's not going to lose the nomination, but it's a problematic for her campaign if he does quite well.

BARTIROMO: It's amazing how well Bernie Sanders is doing right now.

MILLER: Not really, given the country's focus on this issue. The problem is Hillary Clinton addressing this issue is just not persuasive. I mean, we keep thinking of the "dead broke" comment. And every time she talks about income inequality and how she's going to fight for the working guy and the average guy, you think about the fact that she hasn't driven a car in eight years and hasn't gone to the supermarket.

I mean, it's really a problem. I think it's like the opposite of the Jeb Bush problem.

KASPAROV: It's -- it's not surprising, you know. The country is in trouble, and in such historical moments, the radicals on both sides are getting stronger.

If we're seeing Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, you know, who is close to him, you know, gathering these big crowds and coming up with this very aggressive message, the same must happen and it's happening on the left side. Bernie Sanders, you know, it's a different -- different agenda, but it's basically the same radical ideas that has nothing to do with the future government of -- of the new president.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, and then we've got issues on the table right now that we would like to hear all of these candidates' ideas to how about Greece; how about the Eurozone?

We'll get to that next. Will marathon talks between Greece and the eurozone finance ministers cross a finish line or leave Greece in the dust of financial ruin? Our panel will talk about that, as we have some big announcements expected tomorrow. That's on "Sunday Morning Futures," next.  


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Greece's prime minister making a stunning policy U-turn, agreeing to a revised bailout deal, sparking marathon talks with eurozone finance ministers.

There's still no agreement, all as Greek banks apparently are running out of money quickly.

Judith, Julie, Garry, with me this morning. What's your take on the Greece story, Garry? And weigh in here the Russia connection.

KASPAROV: Now, we know that Tsipras and his party and also his allies in the government, the (inaudible) Dawn -- they have been financed by Putin. So Putin wanted the radical Greek government that could actually change Greek relations with Europe.

But I think eventually Tsipras has realized that Putin had no money and probably even no appetite to support Greece long-term, and he made a first call to Putin after the referendum, the first call. But I think it was more like, you know, the bargaining chip that he used against Europe, knowing that, again, he must do everything to stay -- I mean, Greece -- Greece is in big trouble. And, for them, leaving eurozone today would equal total disaster.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, and you were in Greece right before the referendum. How did it feel to you on the...

KASPAROV: No, I think -- I think, if the question was different, like, you know, would you like to stay in the eurozone, I think the answer would be the opposite.

I think the question was put exclusively to get this no answer because it was more about national pride, you know, "We don't want to pay high taxes; we don't want to bend under German pressure."

But the overall -- overall feeling in Greece is that Greece belongs to Europe.

BARTIROMO: They don't -- they didn't know what they were answering.


Julie and Judy, I've got to get your take on Iran and Greece. Because, you know, we may very well see a deal with Greece tomorrow. That will move markets. And if we see an Iran deal announced this week, that's also going to move markets. What's your take?

ROGINSKY: Well, the Iranians seem to be anticipating a deal because in Tehran they've been prepping themselves publicly for a deal. Look, it remains to be seen what the deal is. I'm very concerned that this deal will not have sanctions tied to it, that will lift sanctions...


BARTIROMO: So why would we do it?

ROGINSKY: Well, I'm hopeful, and I will give the president the benefit of the doubt, but I'm hopeful that it's not that just John Kerry wants a big legacy as part of his tenure as secretary of state. This is something that I think, if it's the right deal, is a good deal, but if it's the wrong deal, it would be a disaster. And we don't know the details.

MILLER: I'm looking to see how the five nuclear experts who signed the open letter to the White House saying that the deal, as leaked, did not meet the administration's own standards for a good deal -- if those five defect, and they're both Republicans and Democrats, I think it's going to - - Obama would have a very hard time getting a deal through the Congress.


KASPAROV: But, on Russia, on Iran, you know, Obama makes his own decisions and he goes against Army, Air Force, intelligence, NATO commanders, the Congress. And constitutionally, he'll make a decision, but he must explain to the American public why he knows better than all these worried experts and military people.


BARTIROMO: You're so right. What a list.

All right. We'll be right back. Stay with us.


BARTIROMO: We're back with the panel. One thing to watch in the week ahead?

MILLER: I'm watching Iran, obviously. Does Obama leave with a legacy or as a big loser?


ROGINSKY: I have to agree, Iran, and the question is, what's in the details? The devil's in the details. I'm reserving judgment until I see those.


KASPAROV: Iran, Greece, China, and we have to see how much American influence is left in the world.

BARTIROMO: Yeah, that's a great point. And let's not forget Janet Yellen speaking, her semi-annual testimony, Wednesday and Thursday at the House and Senate. That could certainly impact the economy and markets.

That will do it for us on "Sunday Morning Futures." Thank you so much to our panel. Appreciate your time.

I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll see you next week on "Mornings With Maria," 6 a.m. to 9 a.m Eastern on the Fox Business Network. Take a look at where to find the Fox Business Network in your area. Have a great Sunday, everybody. Thanks so much for being here.

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.