This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," September 13, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I’m Chris Wallace.
With just three days until the next Republican debate, the GOP’s presidential candidates are scrambling.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We will have so much wining if I get elected that you may get bored with winning.
CARLY FIORINA, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Just maybe I’m getting under his skin a little bit because I am climbing in the polls.
BEN CARSON, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I really should not have taken that bait. You know, there’s no reason ever to question anybody’s faith.
JEB BUSH, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As Stephen Colbert said, let’s talk about the big orange elephant in the room. That’s humor, Donald, don’t tweet.
WALLACE: But one of them is staying out of the food fight.
We’ll sit down with Ohio Governor John Kasich, who’s rising in the polls in New Hampshire.
GOV. JOHN KASICH, R-OHIO, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want to be a force of positiveness, of unity and I want to do good in the process.
WALLACE: It’s a FOX NEWS SUNDAY exclusive.
Then, the refugee crisis in Europe spreads to this country. How does the U.S. do more without allowing in terrorists?
Two key senators will debate the issue, Republican Ron Johnson and Democratic Chris Murphy.
Plus, our Sunday panel tackles the GOP revolt in Congress. Are Republicans willing to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?
And our power player of the week, the NFL’s John Urschel on his two passions.
JOHN URSCHEL, NFL PLAYER: I can only play the sport for so long, I have mathematics for the rest of my life.
WALLACE: All, right now, on FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
(END VIDEOTAPE0
WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington.
And then there were 16, as former Texas Governor Rick Perry on Friday became the first candidate to drop of the Republican race. There’s been a dramatic shuffle of the GOP field. Early frontrunners like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker have fallen back, while outsiders like Donald Trump and Ben Carson have surged to the lead.
Meanwhile, Ohio Governor John Kasich has made steady progress, especially in the first primary state of New Hampshire. I spoke with him earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Governor, welcome back to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
KASICH: Always a pleasure, Chris.
WALLACE: Governor, you're still trailing in the national polls, but in -- according to the latest Real Clear Politics average in New Hampshire, you've jumped into second place, behind Donald Trump, and ahead of Jeb Bush. You're running as a practical, compassionate conservative. Will that work for a career politician in the so-called year of the outsider?
KASICH: You know, Chris, it's interesting. You know, I've always kind of hesitated to define myself, but you know I have both an inside game and an outside game. You know, I've always been a reformer all the time I served in public office, and remain a reformer in Ohio, but I also know how to get things done.
And I think it's important that, while we acknowledge the anxieties that Americans have, I think it's also important we realize at the end of the day, we need to have somebody who knows how to land a plane, and I've landed quite a few planes -- chairman of the Budget Committee in Washington, balanced budgets, Pentagon reform, Ohio, turning Ohio around.
So, I've been able to land the plane and a lot of passengers have been happy and I haven't even served any drinks. Maybe a peanut or two.
WALLACE: As we said at the top, you're one of the few candidates who have stayed out of the food fight with Donald Trump. Do you think some of your rivals are making a mistake taking on Trump, and do you think that voters are eventually going to tire of him?
KASICH: Well, look, I, I, I got to tell you about my game plan, rather than theirs. And here's the thing, Chris -- I am unknown largely nationally. In fact, as one of the top-tier candidates, I have a lot of room to grow and people get to know me. So, if I'm talking about somebody else or judging somebody else, then I'm not talking about myself, and I need to let people know who I am. And that's I think frankly why we're doing pretty well in New Hampshire. We're starting to grow in other states, doing better in Iowa.
But what's most important to me is what happens in the early states. I mean I love the people of Nebraska or Hawaii but, frankly, at this point in time, that's not what's critical. What's critical is what happens in the early states and how I introduce myself. So, if I'm talking about Donald Trump or somebody else or their strategy, I'm not talking about what I want to talk about, and I think that doesn't make any sense.
WALLACE: All right. Well, let's talk some issues. Some congressional Republicans say they're willing to shut down the government when the budget runs out at the end of the month if that's what it takes to defund Planned Parenthood. Do you support that?
KASICH: Well, first of all, I think Planned Parenthood ought to be defunded, no question about it. We're doing everything we can in Ohio to figure out how to get that done.
Secondly, though, you know, if you're going to shut the government down, you're never going to get anything signed by the president because he's in total opposition. So you'd shut the government down, and then over time you'd have to open it back up again and you wouldn't have achieved much.
So, I think there are other ways for Congress to try to deal with this, and they need to be more creative in regard to Planned Parenthood. But when you shut the government down, people don't like it. And you shouldn't shut it down unless you have a great chance of success.
I was involved in the shut down in the ‘90s but, as a result of that, we got a federally balanced budget because we kind of knew that there were a number of people in the Clinton administration that believed it needed to be done. But you've got to be very careful when it comes to shutting down the federal government.
WALLACE: Well, let me, let me put this up, up because back in '95, as you point out, when you were Chair of the House Budget Committee, you were very proud of the fact that you took part in a government shutdown. Here is, forgive me, sir, a much younger John Kasich.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASICH: This is one of the best times in our nation's history because we are fighting over deeply-held principles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But, Governor, what some people would say is, look, that was just about money, that was just about the budget, and in this case, we're talking about what Planned Parenthood is doing to fetuses.
KASICH: No, I understand.
But here's the thing, Chris, we really suspected that if we did fight -- and, first of all, not just about the budget, it's about our children's future, it's about debt, it's about economic growth -- but we had a pretty good sense that if we stood our ground back then that we could actually move a balanced budget forward.
I think in this case, the President's made it clear he's not going to sign it. Now, look, I'm willing to fight all day long, but you've got to have a good prospect of being able to be successful because if you're not successful, you shut the government down, and you open it up and you haven't achieved anything, you're just going to -- you're just going to have people shake their heads and wonder what your thinking was.
So, I'm not telling you that there aren't times when you need to do it but, as governor, you know, I have face things that are really important. And there may be a case or two where I might say, OK, if we don't -- if we don't stick to good principle, we may have to, have to not fund it. But I've avoided that, and I think that's, that's what we need to do.
Here's the other thing. I feel very strongly about being able to defund Planned Parenthood, and a lot of other things. But, if you're not going to be successful, then you have to be careful to think about other ways to achieve your objective, Chris.
WALLACE: Governor, let's talk about some foreign issues. A number of your rivals say, if they're elected, they will rip up the Iran nuclear deal their first day in the White House. You say you don't get that. What does that mean?
KASICH: Well, first of all, I don't -- we don't know what's going to happen in 18 months. Secondly, I've been on the Defense Committee for 18 years, and you got to be careful not to paint red lines that you can't keep.
In addition to that, I think we ought to hold Iran totally accountable for what they do, whether they -- if they break any part of this deal, if they fund the radicals like Hamas and Hezbollah, you know, then I think in that kind of a case, we've got to slap the sanctions back on. We would then have the high moral ground to talk to our allies and get them to go along with us.
But in addition to that, if we get to the point where we think that Iran may be developing a nuclear, if we think they're to the point where they could have a situation, well then I think military action would be warranted. But let's wait until we get there and let's stay calm because that's one of the most important things we need to do when it comes to foreign affairs and the way in which we manage our national security.
We don't want anybody to get away with anything, but we got to make clear that we are holding them accountable. If they violate the deal, back to sanctions, bring our allies on and, if they get to a point where they could have a nuke, then all options are on the table.
WALLACE: But let me ask you about another foreign policy issue. What about the refugee crisis in Europe? President Obama announced this week that we will take in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. Where are you on that?
KASICH: I support that. I think it's very important that we don't let anybody infiltrate who's part of a radical group, but America needs to be part of this solution. This is a terrific problem in terms of the flow of humanity.
It's fundamentally a European problem, but I think there are some thinks we can do. Not -- beyond taking of these people in, as long as we're sure who they are, I think we can provide some logistical support so people aren't losing their lives. And in addition, maybe some humanitarian aid.
I think we need to look at this, Chris, as an opportunity to try to draw closer to our European friends who we've drifted away from. And there's another lesson. When you draw red lines, when you don't have an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, and oftentimes it sows confusion, and that's what we're seeing in this case.
Finally, I think it's very important that Europe and Western civilization begin to stand up for this fundamental values, they're primarily Jewish and Christian values, so that when these folks come, we can have assimilation. So they don't change us, but maybe in some way we either change them or live peacefully, of course, peacefully, with them and we have a full integration.
WALLACE: Governor, in the time we have left, let's do a lightening round. I know how much you enjoy this. Quick questions, quick answers.
KASICH: I do like lightening rounds.
WALLACE: You said recently that you would support a quote reasonable increase in the federal minimum wage, and then you backed off.
KASICH: No, no. No, no, no, no. People were asking me about minimum wage and I said it's very important that we don't raise the minimum wage willy-nilly and we end up throwing out of work the lowest and the most unskilled workers.
I also said that if you're going to have a raising the minimum wage, it ought to be something that gets calculated between employers and labor. And I fundamentally believe it ought to be done at the state level.
That's what I said and I have to clarify, I'll make it clear. That's what I believe.
WALLACE: OK. In your 2010 campaign for Governor, you were quoted as saying that you would amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. But more recently, this time, you said leave the Constitution alone, let them be citizens. Why the change?
KASICH: Well, because I'd like to get this done and I think that the issue of birthright citizenship, part of the -- in terms of what the Fourteenth Amendment -- it makes it clear. And that, that when you're born here you become a citizen. So bringing that issue up, because we do need to build the -- we need to finish the fence, protect our border, have a reasonable guest worker program so people can come, can come in and out, the law -- the lawbreakers go to prison or they're deported, and the rest of the people pay a fine, they wait, and they can be legalized.
I think that's something the American people would support, and I think it's something that could pass Congress. And I'm interested in getting things done, not just banging the podium, being an ideologue, and making statements. I want to see America function and working again, and I know how to do it because I have done it before.
WALLACE: Governor, just very gently, we're under lightning round rules, and this is very slowly --
KASICH: OK, I'm going as fast as I can.
WALLACE: All right. On defense spending --
KASICH: You be thunder, I'll be lightning.
WALLACE: OK, on defense spending, you seem to be walking a fine line between, on the one hand, talking about massive ways -- you say there are 900,000 people helping run the Pentagon who have no direct line authority -- but, on the other hand, saying you'd like to see an end to the spending caps on Pentagon spending. Those two seem in contradiction, sir.
KASICH: No, no. I think we, we absolutely have to spend more on defense. It's one of the essential purposes of the federal government. But, Chris, having served on defense for 18 years and being able to witness the waste, the duplication, the red tape, the slowdown, we don't want to spend money there that goes in the bureaucracy and delay that could go into building a stronger defense.
There's no inconsistency there. Reform the Pentagon, strengthen the military. That's why I call myself a cheap hawk.
WALLACE: Finally, we got another Republican debate coming up. What's your strategy?
KASICH: Be myself, have a good time, enjoy it, and appreciate every moment in this campaign because it's really a special part of life.
WALLACE: Governor, thank you. Always good to talk with you.
KASICH: That was lightning. That was lightning, Chris.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: That one was lightning. Always good to talk with you, sir.
KASICH: Hey, you are -- you, you, you are a terrific questioner because the answers can only be as good as the people that ask the questions. You're a pro.
Thank you for having me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Up next, a wild week in the presidential race -- Clinton says she is sorry, Biden gets emotional, and the Republicans go after each other. We’ll bring in our Sunday group to try to make sense of it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They can look at the folks out there and say, I promise you, you have my whole heart, my whole soul, my energy and my passion to do this and I’d be lying if I said that I knew I was there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: An emotional Vice President Biden this week, still grieving the loss of his son, beau, as he wrestles with running for president.
And it’s time now for our Sunday group. FOX News senior political analyst Brit Hume, Julie Pace, who covers the White House for "The Associated Press", syndicated columnist George Will, and FOX News political analyst, Juan Williams.
Well, Brit, you’ve known Joe Biden a long time. We can all see he is clearly struggling with this decision and with his mourning the loss of his son, Beau. And yet, his struggle, it seems to me, only makes him more appealing to people, voters in this age when they’re searching for authentic politicians. Your thoughts about whether he is actually going to run.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, as someone who lost a son myself, I can tell you that grief is enervating. When he says, as you heard him just say he couldn't really commit to this project of running for president with the full energy that he would normally have I think that's -- I think that's probably true. And I think he has also always wanted to be president, very much wanted to be president, run several times.
So, I think he is genuinely torn and I think it's unpredictable how he will come out on this.
WALLACE: I -- you know, I wasn't going to bring it up, and obviously, you have been through a similar experience. Is there some therapy to be gained after throwing yourself into work?
HUME: Well, I just came back to work two weeks, I remember, after my son died, and I think it is helpful. But it’s not as if he is without a job. I mean, he is vice president of the United States and has plenty to do.
Running for president, though, takes things up to about double your normal level. I mean, it really is an exhausting experience. And I can certainly understand why he might not be prepared for it, not to mention, you know, the fact that it draws your whole family into what will undoubtedly be a turbulent, rough and tumble path. And that's also something he obviously has on his mind.
WALLACE: Julie, I’m sure they are watching this with great interest in the Obama White House. Talking to your sources, what do they think? They think he is going to get in? How do you they think he would do against Hillary and maybe most important, who do you get a sense they would trust more, Hillary or Biden, to carry the Obama torch?
JULIE PACE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: It's a big unknown in the White House right now, whether Joe Biden will run or not, for the exact reasons that Brit is pointing out.
We can analyze his donor base. We can look at who he is meeting. But at the end of the day, this is going to be a very personal decision for him and he’s not let a lot of people in on that.
You know, the White House is in the same position that most of the Democratic Party was for months, which is that Hillary Clinton was the strongest candidate in the field, she would be the inevitable nominee and she would be the best person to carry on the Obama legacy, keep a lot of his agenda items in place. They have been very frustrated though with the way she has handled this e-mail issue. Behind the scenes at least, they are pretty plain spoken about that.
WALLACE: You think they are plain spoken. What do they say?
PACE: They’re frustrated that she put the White House in the position to answer all these questions. You remember when this first broke, this dominated White House briefings for several weeks and they also are a bit confused about the way she has handled the fallout from it and there's a lot of loyalty to Joe Biden in the White House.
At the same time, I think the overarching concern for a lot of Biden loyalists is: would he go through this process and then lose?
WALLACE: As for Clinton, finally this week, after six months of refusing to apologize, however reluctantly, she finally said she was sorry. Here's the big moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, D, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: There it came there it went.
George, given the fact that it took reportedly two days of focus groups and pleas from personal friends and advisers to get her to say that much, how much does she get out of that?
GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, she didn't apologize for anything really. What we just showed, that was a mistake. What's the antecedent to the pronoun, that.
If you unpack this word salad she served up on ABC, it turns out she apologized for not being clear and in a timely manner about the fact she has nothing to apologize for. That's what she said.
She said, I could have done a better job of answering questions earlier. I didn't really perhaps appreciate the need do that. What I had done was allowed, it was aboveboard, again, the next paragraph, it was allowed, there was no hiding it, it was totally aboveboard.
So, she has said that a great misunderstanding about her innocence and she is at fault for not making her innocence clear sooner but once you get beyond that, at the -- I don't know that the country's following this very much, but they see her kind of floundering here and stories about the FBI investigation and see aides taking Fifth Amendment before congressional committees, while this is going on, she is essentially losing right now to Bernie Sanders because the contest is really in Iowa and New Hampshire at this point. She is essentially losing there.
She is losing there to a man who says the problem is the billionaire class. There are 536 people in this country who are billionaires, that is the -- sufficient to put her in the losing position to this guy. So, I don't think it's working.
WALLACE: Juan, there was a story on the front page of "The Washington Post" today that says if the company was managing her private servers says they don't know anything about the serve being wiped clean. They think even if she deleted the 30,000 e-mails about Chelsea's wedding and yoga, that they may still be retrievable that would get pretty interesting if they could find those other 30,000 e-mails and whether they really were private.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. So the question is, was she telling the truth when she said they were all about personal issues, as she suggested yoga, wedding plans, all the rest.
But that's about it. I mean, so then I guess the Benghazi committee or the Republicans who I think are very fearful of Hillary Clinton because the recent polls that not only Hillary Clinton but Joe Biden beats all the Republicans at this point but Hillary Clinton has been out there as the large, looming threat for Republicans and I think that's why the e-mail service panel has picked up with the media more than with Democrats, by the way, who still support Hillary Clinton.
But you're right. With this server now there, there's the opportunity to go in and find out exactly all that was there and just -- I think it could actually help Hillary Clinton at this point.
WALLACE: Do you buy that, George?
WILL: How it help her?
WILLIAMS: Because if there's nothing there, there's nothing there.
I mean, what we have enjoyed for the most part so far is her e-mails with Sidney Blumenthal, her distaste for Clarence Thomas, her -- you know, all this kind of --
WALLACE: Her top-secret e-mails, the classified e-mails.
WILLIAMS: There's nothing. There’s just nothing.
PACE,: We have to acknowledge, at the very least, this has been almost a wasted period for her and her campaign.
WALLACE: Six months.
PAGE: Six months occupied by e-mails.
WILLIAMS: That’s the point.
HUME: She has shown an almost -- an almost chronic inability to tell the truth about this. Every time she announces something and makes an explanation, pretty soon, we find out that it isn't true, over and over and over again.
Now, she says that all those e-mails were personal. There's 30,000 of them. Does anybody seriously think if they could be retrieved that the investigators will go through all those e-mails and find all of them were personal? I doubt it.
WALLACE: I wonder if there might be something, for instance, about the Clinton Foundation.
HUME: Yes, well, of course.
WALLACE: All right. I’ve got to switch, because we are running out of time, because this was also the week when the Republican field descended into playground taunts. Here's just a taste.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m talking about persona. I’m not talking about look.
CARLY FIORINA, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Just maybe I’m getting under his skin a little bit because I am climbing in the polls.
BEN CARSON, R, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That's a very big part of who I am, humility and the fear of the lord. I don't get that impression with him.
TRUMP: I don't know Ben Carson. He was a doctor, perhaps, you know, an OK doctor, by the way
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL, R-LA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump is not a serious candidate. He is a narcissist. He is an egomaniac.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Brit, were there any winners here?
HUME: Well, no. I don't think so. Ben Carson ended up apologizing for what he said, expressing doubts about, you know, Trump's Christian faith. And I don't think Bobby Jindal has so far gained much.
What tends to happen in these situations is when some politicians attacks another in a race like this is it may hurt the candidate who is under attack but it tends also not to particularly help the candidate who does the attacking. The benefit of it tends to redound to somebody else. So, that’s sort of where I think this is, there’s little evidence yet that these attacks have begun to hurt Trump, although if they are mounted in a sustained way over time, they may indeed hurt.
WILLIAMS: You know, I think it’s helping Trump. I do. I look at the polls this week. I think Trump has now tripled his support that he had when he got in this race. He is up, I think, eight to ten points since August, Brit. He is gaining -- not only, this is unbelievable to me, he’s gaining with women, he is gaining with college-educated people. Now, more than half of Republicans think he is the inevitable nominee.
So, all roads lead to Donald Trump. Every conversation about a candidate in this race is about their reaction to Donald Trump.
WALLACE: George?
WILL: Well, surely it does. The air starts leaking out of the Trump balloon. Credit should go to Bobby Jindal who, in his speech at the National Press Club this week did not tiptoe around the issue. He stayed this is an extremely destructive man doing extreme damage to the Republican brand --
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Don’t you think, Jindal is 1 percent of the polls, and this is the only way he can get any attention? I mean, if he had given a speech on tax reform, frankly, we would have ignored it.
WILL: And we would have ignored it because it’s not timely. Taking on Trump is timely and the only Republican who has the kidney to do it in a robust way is Bobby Jindal.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Juan, this isn't "THE FIVE."
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Julie, very quickly, because this is the only time we have left, what do they make of this at the White House?
PACE: They are happy to let the Trump show play on for as long as possible. They think it’s great for Democrats in the long run.
WALLACE: And do they think what Trump says is going to end up hurting whoever the nominee is?
PACE: Well, I mean, certainly, you’ve seen people like Scott Walker trying to follow Trump, to some degree. So, they think the more that candidate the rest of the field tries to do that, the more it will hurt Republicans down the line.
WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here, but we’ll see you a little later. Incidentally, no offense to "THE FIVE," it’s one of my favorite shows.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Up next, the refugee crisis in the Middle East floods Europe. What should the U.S. do?
We’ll ask two lawmakers about President Obama's plan to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees. Can we do more while keeping the country safe?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: A look at the New York City skyline and One World Trade Center, 14 years after 9/11.
Now to the refugee crisis in Europe and increasing pressure on the U.S. to do more. Germany expects a flood of 40,000 more migrants just this weekend. Our country has taken in less than 1500 refugees from Syria's civil war since it started in 2011. But this week, President Obama announced plans to let in 10,000 more over the next year. Joining me now to discuss this complicated problem, two senators with two very different views. Republican Ron Johnson chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Democrat Chris Murphy, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Murphy, you say the U.S. has been cold-hearted when it comes to dealing with the flood of Syrian refugees and you say even President Obama's call now for 10,000 more over the next year isn't enough. You want 50,000 more. Explain.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, D-CONN., FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE: So, the whole world is moved by that image of that young little three-year-old boy who had washed up on the beaches of Europe, but the reality is that that happens in some way, shape or form every single day inside Syria and on the passage to Europe. 10,000 kids, at the very least, have died in that conflict. And it just doesn't stand to reason that Germany is going to take 800,000 and the United States has only taken 1500. During the Vietnam War, the United States took 190,000 refugees. During the Balkan conflicts we took 170,000. And my contention here is that if we want credibility in the region, then we have got to be seen as a partner in trying to solve this humanitarian crisis. Right now, we aren't. And that comes with a cost to U.S. credibility when we are trying to solve this problem.
WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Johnson. Is accepting 50,000 Syrian refugees, is that realistic?
SEN. RON JOHNSON, R-WISC., CHAIR, HOMELAND SECURITY CMTE: Well, Chris, one thing we should not do is short circuit. We are taking shortcuts in terms of vetting process. You know, normally it takes about 18 months to two years to fully vet refugees coming to this country and let's face it, the reality of situation is this refugee crisis is a symptom of the broader problem, the root cause of the problem is Islamic terrorists that have declared war on America. And let's face it, it is not the fanciful to think that ISIS may be assaulting some of those refugees with some of their operatives and we need to be first concerned about our own national security, so we are a compassionate nation, but we've got to fully vet the individuals that we would take in. And, you know, I also like these privately sponsored refugee programs like they have in Canada. That would also be very helpful.
WALLACE: All right. There are several points you make there and I want to pick up on them. But before I do, I want to go back to you, Senator Murphy, not to be cold-hearted about it, but one could argue Vietnam was our problem. We broke it, if you will. Is this our problem, the Syrian refugee crisis?
MURPHY: So, I don't think you can say that the Syrian war wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the invasion of Iraq, but we certainly contributed to the ongoing mess in that region and inside Syria because of our occupation, our invasion, which after a set of circumstances, led to the development of ISIS.
WALLACE: But this is a civil war against Bashar Assad.
MURPHY: Which is made much worse by the presence of ISIS inside Syria. Now, I don't think the United States bears sole responsibility, but I think our invasion was a contributing factor and thus, I think we have a responsibility, but also, we have a responsibility, because it's in our national security interests. The fact is, is that when there isn't help for these refugees from the United States or our partners, they turn to others that are offering help, like ISIS, like al Qaeda, to give them the paycheck, to give them nutritional benefits for their kids. And so, if we are not on the ground helping in some way, shape or form then ultimately, we are just pushing a lot of these individuals into the hands of our enemy.
WALLACE: Let's get to this very practical problem about protecting the homeland and the concern as you raised it, Senator Johnson that along with an overwhelming number of legitimate, good faith refugees, you could have potential terrorists who are coming into the country, sneaking in to launch attacks on the U.S. homeland. You're the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. And as you pointed out it takes 18 months to two years now to vet a single person coming into the country. Could we handle 10,000, let alone 50,000?
JOHNSON: No, it's going to be very difficult. And again what we have to do is face the reality of situation that President Obama's strategy of peace through withdrawal has been a miserable failure. And so, our lack of involvement -- what we ought to be talking about is assembling a coalition to try and save lives in the situation in Syria. This has been going on for four years.
WALLACE: But, sir ...
JOHNSON: Again ...
WALLACE: Sir, and again, I will get, excuse me, I will get to that in a minute, but the specific problem, first of all I'm a he a little surprised, why does it take two years to vet a refugee? I don't know what you're doing for two years and secondly, could you handle that? You know, as - we have been doing it for 1,000, 1500. Could you do it for 10,000 ...
JOHNSON: Sure.
WALLACE: Or 50,000?
JOHNSON: Again, part of the problem is normally, when you are talking about refugees, we actually have assets in the place in the countries to be doing interviews, checking the different watch lists, being - doing, you know, doing personal interviews, so it's a process, if you want to be careful that does take time. Now, you maybe can cut down the time, but you cannot reduce the number of steps and the thoroughness of what the investigation needs to be, but here's part of the problem. You know, once these refugees start flowing to Europe, now you have visa waiver programs, it's going to be a lot easier for them to hop from Europe into America. And Chris, if you really are concerned about our national security, take a look at the insecurity of our south western border, which is even a more glaring risk to our national security. So, we have got a big mess on our hands and we are just not facing up to it.
WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Senator Murphy. If we open our doors to tens of thousands more refugees, are we putting the U.S. homeland at risk?
MURPHY: No, we aren't, because we have got an ability to vet these refugees, that will make sure we aren't taking any dangerous ...
WALLACE: You know, as Senator Johnson pointed out, two years to vet a single refugee.
MURPHY: No, and listen, it can happen faster, but as Ron points out, we can't kid ourselves that we are protected just because we shove all these refugees in Europe. Because eventually, they will migrate from Europe to the United States. So, we shouldn't be blind to the fact that there is risk no matter where these refugees end up. Listen, it is expensive. I mean it's not cheap to do this vetting, but we are wasting money right now on a train and equip program that hasn't trained or equipped one serious soldier against ISIS. We can take that money and use it for refugees.
WALLACE: All right. We are going to get to that in a moment. I just want to pick up - if I may, just, gentlemen, on this one issue of security because there is a report today that al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri issued an audio message, in which he called for young Muslims in the West, in the United States, to launch attacks wherever they are and, in fact, lone wolf attacks. Does your reaction to that, Senator Johnson?
JOHNSON: Well, that's exactly what the -- assuming the FBI director is most concerned about now, is the ISIS-inspired attacks on our homeland. We have seen it. And Chattanooga, Tennessee, was most recent example. So, it's a very real threat. And Chris, I have to point out, as Europe accepts hundreds of thousands of refugees that creates an incentive for even more. There are 7.6 million Syrians displaced in Syria, 4 million refugees outside of Syria. That's half the population of Syria. So we can talk about accepting refugees, but we are ignoring the root cause of the problem, which is the disaster, the tragedy, that have been unfolding in Syria for four years ...
WALLACE: All right, let me ...
JOHNSON: But the West has basically ignored. That's - the problem is we have got to address that root cause.
WALLACE: OK, but let's ...
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: And nobody's really talking about that.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that in the time we have remaining, because you are exactly right. The civil war has been going on since 2011. There was an interesting exchange this week. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KIRBY, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: The real answer is good governance in Syria, and that means the Assad regime has to go.
JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: The president's lack of strategy with regard to ISIS and what's happening in Syria, is causing the worldwide problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator Murphy, when four years in, you hear the Obama administration saying Assad has to go which they have been saying for four years, and yet the war continues on, doesn't President Obama bear considerable responsibility for this -- for this mess, not just the civil war, but as Senator Johnson points out, the 4 million people who have fled the country?
MURPHY: For all the Republicans who say that President Obama hasn't done enough, I still haven't heard a coherent plan for them as to what we should do. Nobody in my state would support putting another 50,000 troops back into the fight on the ground.
WALLACE: But you've kind of turned it around. I'm asking you, does President Obama bear responsibility for the mess. You talked about the fact that we invaded Iraq and that that would cause some of the problem, how about the fact that we have had this civil war going on for four years, and as the president's been saying Assad must go and nothing has happened.
MURPHY: No, Bashar al Assad bears responsibility for this civil war, not the president of the United States. And there's a belief that ...
WALLACE: So, he is just an innocent bystander?
MURPHY: Well, there is a belief that the United States can go into the Middle East and solve any problem. And I think we just have to have a little bit less hubris here and understand that this conflict is so complicated, that the United States to get involved, it may work against our national security.
WALLACE: How about the fact that President Obama announced this big plan to train up the free Syrian rebels, as you talk about. He spent $40 million on that. We have trained a grand total of 50 Syrian rebels and they have all disappeared.
MURPHY: It was a bad plan. It was an epic disaster, and it's an example of how U.S. intervention can go wrong, not right. If even we had trained these rebels, they were likely going to go onto the ground and serve side by side with al Qaeda, the very group that is now trying to spur lone wolf attacks against us. I think we have got to have some understanding of the limits of American power there and focus on this humanitarian relief effort. That is the most important thing.
WALLACE: All right, Senator Johnson, you've got the final word.
JOHNSON: Well, bottom line is the historic blunder if this administration was now leaving a stabilizing force behind in Iraq, I think I do not believe Syria would have spun out of control, certainly. ISIS rose from the defeated ashes of what was al Qaeda in Iraq, again, because President Obama did not take the historic opportunity of leaving a stabilizing force behind. So, bottom line is his strategy of peace through withdrawal has been a miserable, a miserable failure and we are seeing the consequences of that failure.
WALLACE: Senator Johnson, Senator Murphy, thank you both. Thanks for joining us. We will stay on top of this story.
Up next, we will bring back the panel to discuss the GOP revolt in Congress over the Iran nuclear deal, Planned Parenthood and whether to keep funding the government.
Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the prospect of another government shutdown? Just go to Facebook or Twitter at "FOX NEWS SUNDAY." And we may use your question on the air.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: The goal here is not to shut down the government. The goal is to stop these horrific practices of organizations selling baby parts.
REP. DAVE BRAT, R, VIRGINIA CONGRESSMAN: You put the budget stuff together with that moral issue and our leadership doesn't move on it, the rest of the country's just going to say all right, that's it, right, we are fed up it is tsunami time, throw everybody out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: House Republicans sharply divided about whether to threaten a government showdown -- shutdown, rather, over defunding of Planned Parenthood. And we are back now with the panel. What we ask you for questions for the panel. And we have got this from Karen Margrave on Facebook. She writes, "The GOP coward on preventing the deal with Iran. Does anyone think they will actually defund Planned Parenthood? The GOP is a total disappointment."
Brit, how do you answer Karen?
HUME: I would say that Karen speaks for legions of disappointed Republicans. I think she is wrong that they cowered on Iran. There is a widespread believe that actually, if they wanted to, they could have made this executive agreement into a treaty. The idea that defunding Planned Parenthood against the wishes of a sitting president with enough vetoes to sustain, and the vetoes he might cast, even if it leads to a government shutdown, there is a path to victory is crazy.
Every time that we get down to this, the government closes, and it's always only a partial shutdown, the Republican Party gets blamed because people want the government cut down perhaps, but not shut down. The party's standing in the polls begin to sink like a rock. Disaffected Republicans like Karen would argue, oh if they had just stuck to their guns they would win in the end. There is no evidence to support that the no government shutdown, John Kasich to the contrary, has ever led to anything good for the Republicans. So it's a suicidal -- suicide mission.
WALLACE: Direct ...
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Julie, we have got two and a half weeks until a possible shutdown, till the government runs out of money, that budget runs out. What do White House officials think that House Republicans will do and would they like to see a shutdown? Do they agree with Brit that if it happens, and what it's going to do, is hurt Republicans and help Democrats?
PACE: Well, they don't want to see a shutdown, because what we learned from the 2013 shutdown it is basically, it's a pox on both your houses, everybody takes some.
WALLACE: This was the - the Obamacare shutdown?
PAGE: Exactly. So, the White House feels like they've got a bit of momentum this year, the president has got a bit of a roll with his agenda. So, they don't want a shutdown to halt that. At the same time, given the fact that they feel like they do have some momentum, I think it's very difficult to imagine the president making some kind of major concession to Republicans, particularly on something like Planned Parenthood, though if House Republicans are going to go down that road, I think they are more than happy to let them do that.
WALLACE: Added to the Republican frustration over funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, you have also got the frustration over the fact that President Obama's Iran nuclear deal went through this week over the objections of a lot of Republicans, and there was an interesting exchange between the two Senate leaders. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-K.Y., SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: The president may have a luxury of vacating office in a few months, but many of our responsibilities extend beyond that time.
SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I guess what it's going to be a position like on the Affordable Care Act. They are going to try to repeal it 60 times and try to break that record?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: George, conservative voters would say the Republicans came to them and said in 2010, support us and they got the House. Republican leaders came to them in 2014, and said support us and they got control of the Senate and yet, the Iran deal goes through. Can you understand why those voters would be fed up?
WILL: Absolutely. And they are fed up two things, as you pointed out. It's Iran is partly everyone's fault, because it should be a treaty and they put in place the (INAUDIBLE) framework, it was going to be treated as not a treaty, it was going to be approved without being approved by either House. So, that was a mistake. Planned Parenthood, though.
WALLACE: A mistake by who?
WILL: By the Senate itself as an institutional body. Democrats and Republicans alike forfeited their Constitution --
HUME: Wait, wait, how, suppose is an executive agreement, that's how we negotiated it, which gives - leaves Congress with no voice of any kind, and no vote of any kind. There is no two-thirds requirement ...
WILL: I understand.
HUME: Agreement. So apart from Corker, what could Congress have done?
WILL: Well, you could have -- part of this frustration on the part of the Republican base and people generally in the country, is that there is no articulation of alternatives. For example, they could have embarrassed the Democrats, saying that your senators would take an oath to support the Constitution, and this is a fundamentally anti-constitutional move. Same was true with Planned Parenthood, you might lose on Planned Parenthood, but you could you in the process break up the 12 appropriations bills, attach Planned Parenthood to every one of them, let them veto it 12 times, demonstrate to the country that he is willing to do almost anything to preserve the right of Planned Parenthood to go about its butchery.
WALLACE: So would you support a government shutdown?
WILL: No, of course not. Here is what I would support, though.
WALLACE: But wait a minute. You just were saying attach it to every appropriations bill and let him veto it.
WALLACE: He vetoes it and then you have to take it out. But 12 times, he has to go before the country and say the most important thing to me is to preserve the right of Planned Parenthood to continue what it's doing. But caroms (ph) of history are so interesting. When those people set out to make those videos of Planned Parenthood, they didn't set out to change the Senate rules. They might have that effect, because we're now at a critical mass of frustration, where Republicans are going to say, all right, the filibuster does indeed nullify congressional elections, and we may have to change that radically.
WALLACE: All right. Meanwhile, President Obama, as a result of all of this, has now passed his prime domestic accomplishment, Obamacare, without a single Republican vote, and will have in effect passed his Iran nuclear deal, his prime foreign policy accomplishment, without a single Republican vote. Juan, whatever happened to the man, the president, who was going to bring us together?
WILLIAMS: I don't think you can blame him. Clearly, the politics that you have just seen between Brit and George is there is a huge anger on the right and about the failure of Congress to confront this president, display anger at the president. We saw some of it this week, Chris, when you had Ted Cruz and Donald Trump out there militating against the Iran deal, and you have Republicans who want to punish Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell for being squishes and RINOs.
WALLACE: You honestly don't think that President Obama deserves any responsibility? I was about to say blame, for the fact that his two major accomplishments, he couldn't bring a single Republican over?
WILLIAMS: Well, let's look at Obamacare. Individual mandate was a Republican idea, but Republicans unified, as you pointed out, they were given control of the House because of anger over Obamacare. They could not afford to antagonize the base by saying, oh, yeah, there are some elements, let's work with this president.
WALLACE: Obamacare was passed before 2010.
WILLIAMS: No, no, no, I'm saying they had the opportunity to work with this president. They didn't do it. He then, I will say this, he then responds with, well, if you have disdain for me, I will show disdain for you, so that is the kumbaya definitely went out the door. But that's been a long time ago.
WALLACE: Brit, it's all the Republicans' fault, they did it first?
HUME: Of course not. I mean, speaking of Obamacare, just to give one example. In substantive terms, in the construction of that bill, the Republicans were given nothing. Now, you may say that the individual mandate was a Republican idea, was actually an idea that came out of a conservative think tank, but apart from Mitt Romney, was not embraced by the Republican Party in any broad way. And the things that the Republicans might have wanted in the bill that might have enticed, indeed almost forced some of them to vote for it -- tort reform, sale across state lines, and so on - were never included in the bill. He gave them no reason to come along, which is how you do it. You offer something to the other side, and you get them to come along. It never happened. So their unanimous opposition is no surprise. And he basically made it come out that way.
WILLIAMS: I think it is really sad that he doesn't have any support. I think it tells you about the polarization of American politics at this moment. But I do think that it was a conservative idea.
WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next -- and I'm sorry that you were hurt. I want you to feel OK.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: See you next Sunday.
Up next, our power player of the week. You are going to love this, a beautiful mind inside a very big body.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: On this first Sunday of the NFL season, here is a question for you. What do football and mathematical formulas have in common? Just ask our power player of the week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN URSCHEL, BALTIMORE RAVENS: There's just something about the joy you get when you solve a mathematical problem. It's like nothing you can compare it to.
WALLACE: John Urschel is talking about his passion for numbers. With a masters in something called numerical analysis, he taught classes at his alma mater of Penn State. There's only one other place Urschel gets the same satisfaction. That's his job as an offensive lineman for the Baltimore Ravens.
URSCHEL: I love the aggressiveness. I love running around. I love just going out on the field, competing with people.
WALLACE: Urschel told us he has got the best of two very different worlds.
URSCHEL: There's something beautiful about being able to split my year in half, where every half of the year, I'm on vacation and doing something I love. During the fall, I get a vacation from math. During the spring, I get a vacation from football.
WALLACE: During this past offseason, Urschel published an article in the "Journal of Computational Mathematics."
What was the title?
URSCHEL: "A Cascade Multigrid Algorithm for Computing the Fiedler Vector of Graph Laplacians."
WALLACE: Say what?
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: He also spoke at the super secret National Security Agency, or NSA.
What is it that the spies wanted to learn from you?
URSCHEL: I' m not sure -- am I okay to share that? I'm not sure about that.
WALLACE: I don't know.
URSCHEL: I don't know. Well, if you don't know and I don't know, then perhaps we should just stay quiet.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Well, since you're 300 pounds, I'm not going to disagree with you.
Since we weren't getting anywhere with that, we talked some other number, his four-year, $2.3 million contract.
How much do you live on?
URSCHEL: Last year, I lived on about $25,000. A little bit less than that, actually.
WALLACE: He says his teammates tease him about his used Nissan hatchback, which stands out in the Ravens parking lot. But Urschel's two passions can collide. His beautiful mind was hurt this summer when he suffered his first concussion.
How much do you worry about brain injury?
URSCHEL: I have never been knocked out before. That's scary, and that scared me, and took me a while to get back, took longer than expected. But this is a sport I love, and for me to be able to go back out there and continue to play football is just a blessing.
WALLACE: How do you sort of weigh the risk between on the one hand the sport that you love and the fact that it is -- the sport could do damage to this other extraordinary skill you have?
URSCHEL: I think you and my girlfriend would get along just magnificently. You two seem perfectly aligned.
WALLACE: Yeah.
URSCHEL: Yes. It is an issue of passion, and I can only play this sport for so long. I have mathematics for the rest of my life.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Urschel says after football, he hopes to get his Ph.D. in mathematics, and then become a professor and a researcher. But this week, it's all about taking on the Denver Broncos. And that's it for today. Have a great week. We will see you next FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox