Sign in to comment!

Fox News Sunday

Secretaries Kerry and Moniz defend Iran nuclear deal; is Obama administration trying to skirt Congress on Iran?

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," July 19, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace.

Donald Trump attacks John McCain's standing as a war hero. Has he finally crossed the line?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He's a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren't captured, OK? I hate to tell you.

WALLACE: Now, the Republican field is rushing to pile on Trump. Our Sunday panel weighs in.

Searching for a motive in the murder of four marines and a sailor in Tennessee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether it's domestic, international, this, that, it's a terrorism investigation.

WALLACE: What do we know about the gunman and whether he had any links to international terrorists? We'll get the latest from Chattanooga.

Plus, President Obama defends his Iran deal and challenges his critics.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically or it's resolved through force, through war. Those are the options.

WALLACE: Now, the White House seeks support for the agreement in Congress.

The administration is not even talking about Congress actually approving this deal.

We'll sit down with the two chief negotiators, Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

And is the Obama administration trying to skirt Congress by sending the deal straight to the United Nations? We'll talk with Senators Ben Cardin and John Barrasso, two leading members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And Planned Parenthood tries to put out the firestorm over this controversial video.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm no going to crush that part.

WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel what it means for the debate over abortion.

All right now on "Fox News Sunday."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

We have a lot of news to cover today. The latest on the investigation into that terror attack in Tennessee and the debate over this week's nuclear deal with Iran.

But we begin with breaking political news. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's comments about Senator John McCain questioning whether he is a war hero.

Senior political correspondent Mike Emanuel reports from Ames, Iowa -- Mike.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Chris, Donald Trump dramatically escalated his war words with Arizona Senator John McCain and created a big new controversy. When panel moderator called Frank Luntz called McCain a war hero, Trump seemed to question that.

TRUMP: He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK? I hate to tell you.

He's a war hero because he was captured, OK? You can have -- and I believe perhaps he's a war hero. Right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people.

EMANUEL: Trump later denied saying McCain isn't a war hero.

TRUMP: If a person is captured, they're a war hero as far as I'm concerned, unless they're a traitor like Bergdahl. He was captured, he's not hero.

EMANUEL: But Trump also said he thinks McCain has done very little for veterans and he's disappointed in him. As for Trump, he received four student deferments from military service from 1964 to 1968, and a medical deferment for a bone spur in his foot. His Republican rivals pounced, with former Texas Governor Rick Perry calling it a new low for Trump and saying, quote, "His attack on veterans make him unfit to be commander in chief of the forces and he should immediately withdraw from the race for president."

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush tweeted, "Enough with the slanderous attacks. Senator John McCain and all our veterans, particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.

And former Republican nominee Mitt Romney tweeted, "The difference between John McCain and Donald Trump is Trump shot himself down" -- Chris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Mike, thank you.

We want to bring our Sunday group on early to discuss the fallout from the latest Trump controversy. Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, Julie Pace, who covers the White House for The Associated Press, head of Heritage Action for America, Michael Needham, and former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

So, Brit, on a scale of one to 10 -- with 10 as political Armageddon -- how bad is this for Donald Trump?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's right up there, a seven or eight anyway. And, you know, the remarks were so crude, ignorant, personal and completely unnecessary.

Politics is about addition. You want people to support you in the party. This is -- John McCain is someone the Republican Party nominated for president, what, seven years ago. He has a following in the party.

Trump ought to want those people to come to him. They won't now. And many people -- I saw a lot yesterday in reaction to this -- a lot of Trump fans said, you know, "I like Donald Trump but this is beyond pale," and that reaction will be widespread and will be quite damaging. He needs to apologize and it remains to be seen if he's got sense enough to do that.

WALLACE: And if he does, is that enough?

HUME: Well, it will help. I'm not sure it's enough because it was saying "he's not a hero." I mean, does Trump really have any idea of McCain's war record quite apart from being captured? What he did while in captivity, what he refused to do, the things he did before he was captured? I mean, it's breathtaking that he would say this --

WALLACE: The fact that he was offered an early release because his father was an admiral, and refused to take it because he wanted to keep faith with his fellow prisoners.

Michael, I know that John McCain is not too popular with your wing of the Republican Party. I get the e-mails: He's a RINO, McCain is, Republican in name only. But denigrating his service, and his years -- 5 1/2 years in a Vietnamese prison camp is pretty tough to defend.

MICHAEL NEEDHAM, CEO, HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA: It's impossible to defend. John McCain's a war hero. His book "Faith of My Fathers" is an inspiration to read. Donald Trump is a clown.

The reason people are attracted to Donald Trump isn't that they agree with what he believes in. This is a guy who believes in socialized medicine. This is a guy in past life supported amnesty. This is a guy who said that he's very pro-choice.

People agree with Donald Trump for the reason Bernie Sanders is getting a following, which is people are cynical about the Washington political class and they look at the same political consultants who have made the Republican Party soulless, who have made the Republican Party intellectually bankrupt, and they say, if those guys set their hair on fire, Trump must be doing something right.

He's not doing something right. He needs to be out of the race. Someone who is serious needs to step up and start channeling the voice of very frustrated American political voters.

WALLACE: Let me pick up on that with you, Congresswoman Harman, because you have been around politics for a while. What do you make of the fact that up until this point, that Trump had made a lot of comments that a lot of people were offended by especially about illegal immigrants being rapists and drug dealers. That didn't sink him but rocketed him to the top. In the latest Fox News poll, he was number one.

FORMER REP. JANE HARMAN, D-CALIF.: Well, I agree that people are fed up with Washington and fed up with politics as usual. But I think Trump is getting exactly what he wants because you're leading with this story on this show instead of leading with Iran, which is a really big story of the week. He's disgraceful.

But I do want to make a comment about John McCain, who we've had our small disagreements from time to time. We basically do agree. I've been all over the world with him. And he uses his moral authority in very impressive ways. There is no one else like John McCain. He can talk about torture like no one else can. He can talk about why sequestration, this brain dead idea, is killing our defense budget and new ways to fund defense.

So, I would say I hope this elevates John McCain's stature. And I hope he doesn't comment at all about this disgraceful act.

WALLACE: Well, it is interesting, we've asked and everyone has asked him to make a comment and he has, up to this point, declined. And I guess that's the Republican line -- when your opponent or enemy is digging a hole, stay out of the way.

Julie, what do they think of -- I don't mean just this weekend -- what have they made of the Trump phenomenon in the White House? And do they think that whoever the Republican nominee ends up being assuming it isn't Trump that his comments especially about illegal immigrants are going to hurt whoever that nominee is with Hispanic voters?

JULIE PACE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: Remember, this White House has a long history with Donald Trump, going back to the early years of Obama's first term when the birth certificate was the big issue and the president came out and called Donald Trump a carnival barker and had to actually produce a long form birth certificate to try to put him off a little bit.

I think that the White House and Democrats as a whole right now are happy to see Trump stay in this race as long -- as long as he can because he not only forces other people in the party to respond to him every time he makes one of these comments, but you start to see this be a litmus test. Everyone comes out and quickly pushes back when he makes a comment about John McCain and his military service. But when he made comments about Mexicans and immigrants, you saw a mixed reaction.

And so, they think that this is harmful to whoever the eventual nominee is, and certainly, I think Republicans feel the quicker he gets out of the race, the better it is for the party.

WALLACE: And you know, Brit, whether or not Trump survives, his success -- as I say, in the latest Fox poll he was in first place, I understand it's early on. But doesn't that show that there is in -- this is what Michael was saying -- a big chunk of the Republican voters who are fed up if not specifically with these issues he's been talking about, are fed up with politics as usual.

HUME: Oh, yes, that's true. The question is how big a chunk and how many willing to back a candidate like Donald Trump with baggage that he brings?

There is certainly a segment of the Republican electorate which is far more angry at Republican leadership in Washington and Jeb Bush and others who are out on the campaign trail than they are of the Democrats and President Obama. And I -- my sense is Trump refers to these people as the silent majority.

What I would say about them is, they're not a majority, and they're not silent. I'm not sure how many of them there are.

WALLACE: And --

NEEDHAM: Fifty-four percent of Republican voters don't think Republicans have come to Washington and done what they promised they would do. There's a reason for that. Republicans have not come to Washington and done what they promised to do. They campaigned on repealing Obamacare. We'll see if they're going to do that. They campaigned against rolling back the president's executive amnesty. The Republican is not doing what it was supposed to do.

WALLACE: So, Michael, let me ask you a question, let's say you end up with Walker or a Rubio or a Bush as a nominee, and Trump runs as an independent -- how badly could he damage the Republican Party?

NEEDHAM: The problem isn't Donald Trump running as a third party. The problem is that the Republican voters right now are saying, you know what, if the Republican Party is not going to do what they sent them to task, may be I'll stay home and watch football. Maybe I'll go to a third, but not necessarily Donald Trump, it would be somebody more serious. But Republican voters are fed up with an intellectually bankrupt and soulless party, and that's something the party leaders have to do something about.

WALLACE: All right. Panel, thank you. We'll see you a little bit later in the program.

Up next, my interview with Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz about the Iran deal they negotiated. I'll tell you, it gets a little testy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Now to the historic agreement with Iran that limits Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon in return for lifting economic sanctions. Critics worry Iran will cheat or develop a bomb down the road.

Earlier, I sat down with the top U.S. negotiators, Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Gentlemen, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Pleasure to be here.

WALLACE: President Obama and both of you talked about insisting on any time, anywhere inspections, but what you ended up with is that Iran can keep us out of its most secret, most suspicious sites for up to 24 days.

Secretary Kerry, three and a half weeks is not anytime anywhere.

KERRY: Well, that's not accurate, that we ever -- I never, in four years, had a discussion about anywhere, anytime, that is the --

WALLACE: Secretary Moniz did.

KERRY: Before he came into this negotiation, he did not, not in the course of this negotiation.

WALLACE: President Obama, on April 2nd --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: That's accurate. That's --

WALLACE: He didn't say in 24 days.

KERRY: Well, but, Chris, don't play a game here. The fact is that in arms control, there is no country anywhere on this planet that has anywhere, anytime. There is no such standard within arms control inspections. There is an IAEA process for which we have negotiated a unique ability to be able to bring cloture. The reason we're in this predicament right now is the IAEA was never being able to close the deal.

We have created a mechanism by which we can go to the United Nations, one country can take this to the supreme -- to the -- to the Security Council. We have an ability to snap back all the sanctions or to put any sanction on we want, hold them in material breach if they do not give us access. That's never existed previously.

But we never ever had a discussion about anywhere anytime. It's called managed access. It's under the IAEA. Everybody understands it. And the intelligence community has made it clear to us, as they did before we signed onto this deal, that we would be able to know what they are doing during that intervening period of time.

WALLACE: Of course -- of course the question is managed access, is that good enough?

And in his news conference this week, Secretary Moniz, the president said, look, you can't hide whatever they're doing, if they are doing something in violation, in a closet in -- in 24 days. But there are plenty of arms experts, nuclear experts out there that say you can hide plenty of stuff in three and a half weeks. That's almost a month, sir.

SECRETARY OF ENERGY ERNEST MONIZ: Let me clarify, first. Let me read the rest of the sentence. I said managed -- I said access anywhere anytime in the sense of a well-defined procedure and a well-defined time window to resolve it. So, that's -- first of all, I want to clarify that.

Second of all, what will happen is if the process runs the full length of 24 days, the IAEA inspectors will take environmental samples. When environmental samples are taken and nuclear activity has taken place, it is virtually impossible to clean up that place. You can paint the floors, you can do what you -- do what you want. We feel very confident that one would find the evidence of nuclear activity.

WALLACE: Under this deal, we lift the arms embargo on Iran being able to buy weapons and even ballistic missiles between five and eight years. And the sanctions against General Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, are also lifted.

What we end up with, Secretary Kerry, is an Iran with billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars more, able to buy weapons, and a Revolutionary Guard with fewer restraints.

Isn't that potentially an even more dangerous state sponsor of terror in the Middle East?

KERRY: First of all, Chris, don't exaggerate. It's not hundreds of billions of dollars. It's $100 billion, approximately.

WALLACE: That's in the first year.

KERRY: But approximately -- well, it's their money that they have had frozen.

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: Well, let me just --

WALLACE: And it's -- but it's --

KERRY: -- but let me just finish --

WALLACE: -- $150 billion in the first year.

KERRY: Chris, please.

Chris, this is not supposed to be a debate. You're supposed to ask questions, we're supposed to be able to answer it. Let me answer your question.

Your question said what happens in terms of that period of time to Soleimani and (INAUDIBLE)?

This is a nuclear negotiation about a nuclear program. The United Nations -- when they passed the resolution contemplated that if Iran came to the negotiation and they ponied up, all the sanctions would be lifted.

We didn't lift all the sanctions. We left in place, despite the fact that three out of seven countries negotiating wanted to do away with them altogether, we want the five years in it for the arms and eight years for the missiles.

But we have many other sanctions still applicable and we could bring other sanctions to push back against any of their behavior. They're not allowed to send arms to the Hezbollah. That's a separate resolution. They're not allowed to send arms to the Shia militia in Iraq. That's a separate resolution. They're not allowed to send arms to the Houthi, a separate resolution.

So, we, in fact, have a huge ability to be able to bring any number of efforts against Iran for any bad behavior here whatsoever.

WALLACE: Briefly, do we have any kind of understanding, because you've come under criticism, when they, at the last minute, brought in let's lift the arms embargo, that you didn't insist on getting the three Americans released.

Do we have any kind of understanding that Iran will release those hostages soon?

KERRY: Let me just say to you that -- that every single meeting, everywhere in the world that ever took place with the Iranians, we have raised the issue of the American citizens and we are working on the issue of the American citizens even now.

WALLACE: When Barack Obama was running for president in 2012, he said this in a presidential debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Secretary Moniz, I understand that there are limits, but Iran can continue to run its centrifuges. It can continue research. It can continue to enrich uranium.

Why didn't the president keep his pledge to the American people that we would end Iran's program?

MONIZ: Well, first of all, the issue of Iran having a nuclear program was already established in the previous administration.

Clearly, what we have done is we have dramatically limited and constrained the program --

WALLACE: But the president said --

MONIZ: -- read through -- through 15 years.

KERRY: -- and that would end their ability to get a weapon.

MONIZ: To get a weapon.

KERRY: We have ended their ability to get a weapon.

MONIZ: And the --

WALLACE: For a limited time, sir.

KERRY: No, not for a limited time, for the duration of the NPT.

MONIZ: We are --

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute --

MONIZ: We are --

WALLACE: -- the president said --

MONIZ: We are --

WALLACE: Wait a minute.

MONIZ: -- we are better off --

WALLACE: -- the president said --

MONIZ: If I may finish -- we are better off forever in terms of Iranian nuclear weapon activity under this agreement than we would be without it.

WALLACE: But the president said in April.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: In year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges, they can enrich uranium rapidly, and then at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's not ending the program.

MONIZ: The breakout time will -- in fact, will not be going to zero at that time.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: So, the president was mistaken?

MONIZ: The -- I'm just telling you what the agreement has, the final agreement has the one year breakout time securely for 10 years. And then there will be a soft landing after that for -- for several years.

WALLACE: Right. So by year 13, 14, it's --

KERRY: Never ever goes to zero -

MONIZ: No, it will -- it will --

(CROSSTALK)

MONIZ: It will never go to zero ever.

And furthermore, let me add something else, where we are using the word "breakout time" unconventionally in the sense of applying only to the nuclear materials. There's a lot more you need for a nuclear explosive and if you look at the agreement, you will see an indefinite commitment to not pursuing four major activities needed for a weapon. And in addition, a 15 years of no work at all on uranium or plutonium metallurgy.

KERRY: In 25 years, Chris, where there entire uranium cycle is being tracked, from the mining all the way through every component of it. So our intelligence community has told us, they would have to have, to make a weapon illicitly or covertly, a completely separate secondary supply of uranium and they won't be able to do that.

WALLACE: Finally, Secretary Kerry, the White House is already working hard to try to get enough Senate Democrats to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.

What does it say about this agreement that the administration is not even talking about Congress actually approving this deal?

KERRY: Well, because the Republicans have already made it clear what their position is to a large measure and they are in the majority in both houses. So, there is a purpose, obviously, in trying to get first. He hasn't settled on a veto. He's trying to find the 41, which is a different thing, which is --

WALLACE: The filibuster.

KERRY: Well, no, it's not. It's a question of whether or not you can approve it.

But leaving that alone, I think the key question --

WALLACE: But why not get it approved?

KERRY: Well, we'd love to have it approved. And hopefully, we'll be able to persuade enough people. I hope there are enough minds still open, ready to consider this on its merits, that could be persuaded. And we're going to work very hard.

Both of us will be on the Hill next week. We look forward to this interaction with the Congress. And we very much hope we can persuade enough people to approve it, of course.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, thank you.

MONIZ: Thank you.

KERRY: Thanks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Joining me now: two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which will lead the debate on the Iran deal. Republican John Barrasso of Wyoming and top Democrat on the committee, Ben Cardin of Maryland.

Gentlemen, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

SEN. BEN CARDIN, D-MD.: Thanks for having us.

WALLACE: Well, you just were sitting here with me watching the interview with the two secretaries.

Senator Barrasso, what's your biggest problem with the argument they made?

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, R-WY.: A couple things. One is there is bipartisan skepticism about this deal. There's a huge difference between even the framework of three months ago to the deal that just got released the other day, which is very complicated.

The inspections that you raised, they were supposed to be anytime anywhere, 24/7, and now, it's going to be 24 days. And this late-minute concession because this administration was so desperate to get any deal signed, the concession that we would now allow Russia to sell to Iran ballistic missiles that could hit in the neighborhood but also with the strength to hit to the United States, I think was an absolute mistake and a concession and almost surrender by the president to get any deal signed. That's my concern.

WALLACE: Senator Cardin, did Kerry and Moniz persuade you or do you still have questions?

CARDIN: Well, fortunately, with Congress having 60 days to review the agreement, we're going to take that time in order to understand it and ask our questions and get our answers.

Bottom line is whether this agreement prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. The inspection enforcement regime is a very important part of it. We want to understand it better. The question will be, whether this is effective enough to prevent nuclear weapons --

WALLACE: Does the 24 day -- which Secretary Moniz said, look, they can't hide anything in 24 days -- are you satisfied with that?

CARDIN: Well, we want to look at the covert opportunities. We understand that we cannot trust Iran. We know that there are many ways that they can get a nuclear weapon. One is through covert activities in a military facility.

What does the 24-day delay mean? That's going to be questions that we'll be asking and we'll be having hearings starting this week and that's going to be willing one of the primary areas of our interest.

WALLACE: Senator Cardin, I think it's fair to say that as the top Democrat in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the White House is counting on you to support the deal. Are you -- honestly, are you a sure yes vote for this deal?

CARDIN: I'm going to use the review period to understand it. My obligations are to the people of this country. People I represent in Maryland, people in this country. I'm going to do what's in the best interest of this country.

I have to decide whether this agreement puts us in a better shot of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state or not. And that's going to be how I evaluate it.

WALLACE: So, they shouldn't count on you at this point?

CARDIN: It's not a matter of what party I belong to, it's not a matter of supporting the president. The question is, what's in the best interest of this country?

WALLACE: President Obama said that there are two options -- either this deal or another war in the Middle East.

Senator Barrasso, what's your alternative?

BARRASSO: Well, my alternative was to say that I'm most interested in the security of the American people. That is a false choice that the president brings out. It is scare tactics to try to get this approved.

My alternative is a better deal. But when you're so desperate or eager to make a deal, sometimes, you make decisions and concessions that should not be made.

Two years ago, we had Iran where we wanted them because specifically of the sanctions that the Senate imposed. The president opposed those sanctions. We insisted. That's what brought Iran to the table in the first place. It was in their enlightened self-interest to deal with us.

But when the president takes other restrictions off of the table in terms of a true threat to Iran that then that strengthens their hand, weakened our hand, which is why we have this deal today.

My answer is a better deal. Go back and make a better deal by increasing the sanctions and not removing them.

WALLACE: But while the sanctions brought -- Senator Barrasso -- brought Iran to the table, they didn't stop Iran's nuclear program. Let me put some stats up.

When President Bush started going after Iran in 2003, they had 163 centrifuges. After all of the sanctions when President Obama began these negotiations in 2013, Iran had 19,000 centrifuges. Sanctions weren't working. They were not stopping Iran's nuclear program.

BARRASSO: Which is what tells you, if you give them more money, they're not going to use it for better interest of the people of that country. They're going to use it for terrorism. They're going to use it to continue to develop --

WALLACE: But I think the point, sir, respectfully, the point is -- we have sanctions on them. The economy was badly hurt. They went from 100 centrifuges to 19,000.

BARRASSO: Because their focus continues to be becoming a nuclear power no matter --

(CROSSTALK)

BARRASSO: They're going to cheat. We know that. They do that. They're going to use money for terror.

We need to continue -- I want to hold the president to what he was at two years ago which -- when he said, we're going to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. He's now moved the goal post. All he wants to do is manage it.

They will get a nuclear weapon. They will be a nuclear power, as well as an industrial and a military power.

WALLACE: I want to bring you in a moment, Senator Cardin.

But I want to -- you say let's go back and let's negotiate a new deal. How do you answer the president's argument: if we -- if Congress disapproves this deal, you're going to end up with the worst of both worlds. Here's what the president said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Without this deal, there would be no limits on Iran's nuclear program. There would be no monitoring. No inspections. The sanctions we rally the world to impose would unravel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: The president's point is, sanctions will be gone because a lot of our international partners aren't going to go back to the table. They've negotiated a deal that they're satisfied with. Iran will be free to ramp up its nuclear program. And the U.S. will get the blame.

BARRASSO: But the president says, if they don't comply, he's going to have snapback sanctions. So, how can he say that the snapback sanctions will actually be effective if he says sanctions don't matter?

The president is also saying that no matter how terrible the deal might be, it's better than the alternative of war. No matter how badly they have come up with this deal, no matter how many concessions they have made, it's better than the alternative. I think it's a false choice.

WALLACE: Senator Cardin?

CARDIN: Well, first, Chris, the reason sanctions worked is because U.S. showed leadership and then we got the international community to go along with us and we started crippling Iranian economy. For us to make sure there's enforcement, the snapbacks are very important. We have to be able -- to be able to snap back those international sanctions.

One of the questions we're going to be asking is: if there is a breach, how that breach will in fact work to make sure that the international community is again united. And quite frankly, there's a provision in this that's pretty strong that the United States unilaterally can go to the United Nations and get sanctions back on.

We're going to take a look at it, though, because we're concerned whether we can put back the regime or not.

WALLACE: I want to bring up one last question with you, Senator Cardin, and that is the United Nations will consider a resolution this week on whether or not to approve the Iran deal. You as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations, and the chairman, Senator Corker, have sent a letter to the president saying that Congress should go first before the U.N. Given that even if the U.N. approves the deal, there's a 60- to 90-day delay and you're going to have to decide yes or no in 60 days. What difference does it make who goes first, and is the fact that the White House is insisting on taking it to the U.N. before Congress votes, will that alienate Democrats who might vote against the president?

CARDIN: Well, this is a process issue. We're going to review the agreement on its substance. That is going to be our key as to whether this agreement makes our country safer from nuclear Iran or not. That's going to be the main focus of it. However, I don't know why they're going to the United Nations. I think they should have gone to the United Nations after the 60-day review. They don't gain anything by doing it earlier. I think it's not consistent with the Iranian Review Act. That's why I joined Senator Corker and urged the president to reconsider and wait until after the 60-day period. It doesn't take effect until 90 days after the U.N. acts, so there's nothing loss by waiting for the congressional review.

WALLACE: Apparently, they're not going to wait. They're going to do it. How much trouble is that going to create for the administration on Capitol Hill?

CARDIN: Bottom line is, does this agreement prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power or not? That's going to be the review standard.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Final word.

BARRASSO: I talked to Samantha Power, the U.N. ambassador, on this issue. She said the greatest weakness of this whole deal is the complexity. What's the rush? The American people have a right to see what's in this and to weigh in.

WALLACE: It's online.

BARRASSO: Well, it's been hidden. Chuck Schumer in one of the reports today said he was going to read it over the recess. He hasn't gone through it yet. Members haven't had a chance. 158 pages.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I understand, but they haven't voted on it yet either.

BARRASSO: We want to have an opportunity for the U.S., the people, the elected representatives to vote.

WALLACE: I don't understand. Are you saying 60 days isn't enough?

BARRASSO: I say 60 days is enough. The president shouldn't go to the United Nations before the 60 days. We need to go home over the recess and listen to our constituents. I was in Wyoming yesterday and got an earful about why this is so bad and a risk to the United States national security. We have the time. But the president shouldn't do an end run around Congress and the American people to go to the Security Council of the United Nations before we act.

WALLACE: Senator Barrasso, Senator Cardin, thank you both, thanks for coming in. Obviously we'll stay on top of this.

When we come back, we'll go live to Chattanooga for the latest on that deadly shooting rampage in Tennessee. Now another victim is dead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: A makeshift memorial in Chattanooga, Tennessee for five members of the military who were killed in that shooting rampage. Investigators are uncovering new information about the gunman and what he did in the hours before he launched his terror attack. Senior national correspondent John Roberts is live outside the military recruiting office, which was the first crime scene, with the latest. John?

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS SR. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Chris. The family of Mohammad Abdulazeez last night expressed condolences to the families of the service members who were slain and the police officer who was wounded, saying the person who perpetrated this horrible crime does not represent the son they knew. But they did give us some possible insight into Abdulazeez's state of mind, saying he had suffered from depression from years.

The number of his victims rose to five yesterday. Petty Officer Second Class Randall Smith passed away from his wounds. He leaves behind a wife and three young children, all under the age of 7. The FBI now following more than 200 leads, dispatching agents to Jordan to determine what Abdulazeez was doing during a lengthy visit there back in 2014. Did he meet with Islamic extremists or terrorist groups? The FBI is also looking into a text message that he wrote to a friend the day before the shooting, an Islamic verse that included the phrase quote, "whosoever shows enmity to a friend of mine, I have declared war on him." A lot of talk now about force protection across America. This man in Virginia, where there are open carry laws with weapons, took it upon himself to stand guard outside a recruiting center, but governors in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma issuing orders to protect and arm recruiters, and legislation to allow that, soon to be introduced by Duncan Hunter in Congress. And that memorial that you mentioned, Chris, outside the recruiting center, continues to grow. People coming all day yesterday and again today to plant a flag, say a prayer, and pay their respects to the slain heroes.

And we have been watching here outside the recruiting center for the last few minutes, a sort of impromptu street church session that began just a little while ago. The man who has been talking to the crowd, saying we need to do more to protect our military and our police officers, asking why the White House has not been lit up in red, white and blue since Thursday. Chris?

WALLACE: John Roberts reporting from Chattanooga. John, thanks.

And we're back now with our Sunday group to discuss all of this. Brit, it keeps happening. Islamic radicals in this country. Sometimes -- this fellow had gone to the Middle East, but a lot of them haven't even gone to the Middle East -- launching these terror attacks, which raises the question, how on earth do we protect ourselves?

HUME: And it was in the wake of FBI Director Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill, in which he basically said, you know, we can stop some of these, we can stop a lot of these, but there's no way we can stop all of them.

Chris, I think this raises an interesting question. If it turns out, as it may, that this was a terrorist organization inspired or directed either way, but the question arises, to what degree is the ability of ISIS and other groups to inspire lone wolf terrorists, as this man appears to be, dependent on their military successes in the Middle East? And if it develops -- and it may be hard to tell in a short-term time frame -- that it's a big deal, that it's a big part of it, that ISIS' seeming march across the Middle East is what's giving rise to this in a major way, then it raises a very important question for this administration and the next one, and that is, does that now mean that in order to be safe here, we have to crush ISIS? And perhaps other terrorist organizations?

WALLACE: Julie, this is at least the ninth attack on the U.S. military in this country in the last six years. And at recruitment centers -- and I didn't realize this -- the policy is that the soldiers who are recruiting have to wear their uniforms, but cannot carry weapons. How much thought is there inside the administration about changing that policy and allowing soldiers when they're out on the street, not on military bases here in this country, to protect themselves?

PACE: At this point, it doesn't appear as though there's major consideration being given to changing that policy. Officials say that this is a policy that's been in place for many years. It's something that's governed by the Pentagon. They don't feel a need to have a quick reaction and quickly change this. It's certainly possible that we'll see Pentagon officials, you know, move to want to reconsider this, but at this point I don't think you should expect anything happening imminently.

HUME: What's the downside?

WALLACE: Pardon?

HUME: What's the downside of doing it? I don't get it.

WALLACE: Do you have a sense of that?

PACE: I think one of the downsides that they say right now is they make the policy based on safety of the troops, and at this point they think it's safer for them to not have more weapons around them than to be carrying weapons.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: -- a lot of these recruitment centers are in shopping malls, and a weapon might go off inadvertently. But you know, you do have to ask the question, when ISIS and other radical groups have specifically urged people in this country to go after military people, have given their names, do you want to leave them defenseless?

PACE: I think it's a broader question. If the military is fighting ISIS or another group overseas, there's an inherent risk to that. We all know that. If there's going to be a sign that ISIS is trying to have people in the United States, recruiting them, pushing them to launch attacks on centers like this, elsewhere, then I think there probably will have to be a broader review of this policy.

(CROSSTALK)

NEEDHAM: These are the types of policies that a country that's not serious about defending itself adopts. Right after September 11, President Bush said that we will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail. It's incredibly clear that the Obama administration is tired of the American leadership in the world. Their foreign policy is intellectually bankrupt, and as we see with this and as we see with the Iran deal, their foreign policy fails (ph).

HARMAN: That's so unfair. I agree we should harden the entrances to these facilities, but this was a surprise attack. Hard to protect. Impossible to protect everything 100 percent of the time. They only have to be lucky once. But we have to get into the heads of these kids.

WALLACE: I don't think you should use the word lucky. Effective.

HARMAN: Yes. But a lot of them get captured because they don't know how to work explosives, et cetera, and we've actually had a lot of success in foiling a lot of these plots. We should give credit to our police and our safety communities. But back to this. We have to get into the heads of these kids. I have an op-ed in today's Post talking about how digital unsavvy we are. We should leverage the talents of Silicon Valley and all the --

WALLACE: Let me interrupt for a second, because I want to pick up on that. Because --

HARMAN: -- kids out there, and pop up in their faces when they go on computers.

WALLACE: Let me ask you the question, Congresswoman. When you were the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in fact, you got involved in this, and you even proposed legislation that basically said they're recruiting over the Internet, we have to find a way to intercept that, to short-circuit it. It didn't go through the Senate. It didn't pass.

HARMAN: Didn't go through the Senate because some groups distorted what we had tried to do. This was supposed to be a multidisciplinary committee making recommendations to Congress about how to intercept these messages before people engage in violent acts.

WALLACE: But very briefly, keeping it simple for me. How would you do it? How would you stop ISIS on the Internet from, you know, putting a message out there that some of these crazies read and are inspired by?

HARMAN: I don't know about you, Chris, and I'm a little old in the tooth to understand how to do this well. But every time I go on the Internet and I look at a blog, something pops up, another message from somebody. What we want is when some kid like this, an impressionable kid with a history of depression and a family that was dysfunctional, goes on the Internet and he's looking up "Dabiq," which is this glossy magazine that ISIS puts out -- a pop-up message comes and says, don't believe any of this; the truth is that. And it shouldn't have a State Department Twitter handle on it. It should be from somebody who is credible in his own head. And I think we could dissuade a lot of these kids if they got the facts, fair and balanced, Chris, fair and balanced.

NEEDHAM: That's a proposal to treat the symptom, not the actual problem. The problem is that ISIS is growing in influence overseas. We need to go overseas and we need to crush and humiliate them over there, so that they're not attractive. If there's not a base overseas that is attracting these people to it, people going on social media and trying to recruit are just Internet trolls. And so the challenge is that we've not gone over to the Middle East and defeated ISIS.

WALLACE: So you think the success of ISIS -- the success of ISIS overseas and the fact quite frankly that our war against ISIS is not going well at all, is a factor, a contributing factor in the recruitment?

NEEDHAM: Of course. Look, in social media, it's an even battlefield. They can recruit over there and our counterintelligence services can also try to disrupt over there. We need to go destroy them overseas.

WALLACE: Let me if I may, just ask, Julie, how would they respond at the White House to that?

PACE: I think so some degree, they would agree with that. One of the things that ISIS has been quite good at is not only having actual successes on the battlefield, but taking credit for things that happen in other parts of the region that may be ISIS inspired but not actually directed by ISIS. So they're taking credit for what's happening across the broader region, and obviously that's having an impact.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: -- everyone agrees with that, including to some extent the administration, then this question arises. Are we using the full force of American military power and those of willing allies, to crush ISIS? I think the answer unmistakably is absolutely not. And as long as that's the case and as long as it seems to be the case, that ISIS' success and survival over there is inspiring these kinds of homegrown terrorists, seems to me we have got an obvious problem.

WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here. But when we come back, the political firestorm over an undercover video about trafficking in fetal body parts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not going to crush that part. I'm going to basically crush below. I'm going to crush above, and I'm going to see if I can get it all intact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's a clip of an explosive undercover video that was released this week, showing a top doctor at Planned Parenthood talking in graphic detail about collecting fetal tissue for scientific research.

We're back now with the panel. This is a big topic that just exploded after this video came out. Michael, the National Institute of Health spent $76 million last year on research involving fetal tissue. Testing drugs, testing ways of combating diseases. It's obviously horrifying to watch that doctor sitting there sipping her wine, and eating her salad while she talks in these terms. But -- and I understand that you're against abortion, period. But taking that out of the debate, given the fact that they say they're not profiting here, what's wrong with what's going on?

NEEDHAM: Well, it's not true they're not profiting here. Actually there were pamphlets given to Planned Parenthood clinics that specifically use the word profit in terms of encouraging them to accept this.

Look, this is what happens.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: But they're not profiting. They're giving it at cost to a tissue middleman. I'm not saying the tissue middleman is not profiting, but the Planned Parenthood isn't.

NEEDHAM: The pamphlets encouraging the Planned Parenthood clinics to engage in this activity, specifically use the word profitability and profit to the clinic to doing it. Look, it's not just Planned Parenthood. Look at what happened with Gosnell, with scissors being used to snip the backbones of children who had been delivered already. And this is what happens when you have a culture that says life is not intrinsically valuable, and I think it's going to cause a lot of pro-choice people to say, you know what, this is not what I signed up for, and re-evaluate this, because it's horrifying, both the Gosnell story, and what we see here. It's horrifying what happens when you don't accept the premise that life is intrinsically valuable.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, the doctor is clearly talking in that thing about I can crush it above and below. That's manipulating an abortion, manipulating the fetus in an abortion, which is flatly illegal, and even though Planned Parenthood may or may not, they say they are not profiting, the tissue middleman that they give the tissue to, clearly is.

HARMAN: Well, full disclosure. I served on the board of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles for two years, and that board was full of fairly well known Republicans and Democrats, that's been its history for a hundred years. It's been bipartisan. I support Roe v. Wade. I know we have a disagreement about that, but we're not talking about that.

I think Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, did the right thing by condemning the tone and content of that video. There's some issue about whether that video was doctored, whether that's exactly the way it happened. But I agree.

WALLACE: She says those words.

HARMAN: I do not support and I will never support any manipulating of tissue in that circumstance. But let's understand, too --

WALLACE: You do agree that's what she was talking about?

HARMAN: It does sound like it. And I don't know what the middleman earned, but I would point out too that research done with fetal tissue that is voluntarily given can really help with Alzheimer's and a lot of diseases that we don't have cures for.

WALLACE: As you pointed out, the video was so shocking that the head of Planned Parenthood released this statement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CECILE RICHARDS, PRESIDENT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Our top priority is a compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Brit, is that the problem here? The staff member's tone?

HUME: Well, and the statement she said. No, the content is the problem, as has been pointed out here, and whether Planned Parenthood profits directly, it certainly participates in the traffic in these fetal body parts. And the manipulation of the fetus so that you protect the saleable body parts is obviously a part of it, and obviously the tone, particularly the chomp and then you get this much for a liver. It demonstrates a callousness toward the killing of a human life that is I think a product of the abortion culture and where it has taken us. That was true also of Gosnell, to an even more revolting extent. And I think that's the problem. It raises a deeper moral question about where all this is taking us.

WALLACE: I can tell you. I did a story about this -- we both worked at ABC on 20/20 back in 2000. It didn't involve Planned Parenthood, but it did involve these private companies that were going to abortion clinics, independent abortion clinics, and encouraging them to produce, to harvest fetal parts, which they then would sell. And they had a whole menu of you can get this much for a liver, this much for a heart. However you feel about abortion, Julie, it is horrifying.

PACE: It really is. And to bring this to politics in Washington, you are seeing from the White House an effort to try to keep some distance from this. They do not want to weigh in on this in a robust way.

WALLACE: I am going to ask you, did this this week, I know there is a lot of stuff going on--

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: -- did this gain any traction at the White House?

PACE: It really didn't. The only thing we heard from the White House was one statement in the briefing on Friday, where the press secretary basically said things that were in line with the statement we saw from Planned Parenthood and said that they don't have any knowledge of the practices. I think from the Republican perspective, what you're seeing -- and this touches on Michael's point to some degree -- is Republicans have had some trouble in recent years talking about abortion. They've said things that have been offputting to a lot of women, to a lot of voters, and they see though that this video and the horrific nature of what's being described here is something that could have broader appeal, and might allow them to bring the abortion debate up in a way that would be better for them frankly politically.

WALLACE: If I may, just talking about the political aspect of this, as soon as this video broke, we not only asked for comment, Fox News, from Republican candidates, we also asked Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has refused to give us any statement on this. How potentially troubling could this be for her, particularly as she is talking about being the exemplar of women?

PACE: Sure. I don't think she'll be able to avoid talking about this forever. And again, this gets to the point that Republicans are making, which is that this is something that should be appalling not just to people who are pro-life, but also to all Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

NEEDHAM: No, not at all. It's not going to only impact the presidential campaign, it's going to impact Congress. You saw earlier this week the House pull a bill that would have sent money to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which last year alone gave $800,000 to Planned Parenthood. I think this September is going to be the year that Planned Parenthood gets defunded. You can't imagine the House how after they refused to send money to Susan G. Komen because it funds Planned Parenthood, to then turn around and fund Planned Parenthood themselves. So it will have an impact.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman.

HARMAN: I think that would be tragic. I think Planned Parenthood is a nonpartisan organization. I think this is an extremely dreadful and unfortunate event for which the president has apologized. But I think fetal research, properly done, unexploited, is essential to curing diseases in the future.

NEEDHAM: I think it's fine to say, look, regardless of what you think about Planned Parenthood, we shouldn't have people's tax dollars being sent to this organization. It's controversial and it's a form of kind of cultural cronyism for a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians in Washington to force taxpayer dollars to go to an organization that's controversial, regardless of whether you support or oppose that organization.

WALLACE: How, briefly, would you respond to that?

HARMAN: I just disagree. I think it's unfortunate that this happened, but I totally disagree.

WALLACE: All right. Thank you, panel. See you all next week. Tough subject. Up next, we'll have a final word.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: For the latest on the Trump controversy and the investigation into the Chattanooga shooting, stay tuned to this Fox station and Fox News Channel.

And that's it for a packed show today. Have a great week. We'll 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.