Sen. Perdue: Bipartisan solution for DACA is possible

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," January 14, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TRISH REGAN, GUEST HOST: Good morning everyone. A deadline to keep the government from shutting down fast approaching while lawmakers look for answers on the Trump dossier. Hello, everyone, I'm Trish Regan in this morning for Maria Bartiromo. This is "Sunday Morning Futures."

The Trump administration says it will go back to accepting renewal requests for so-called DREAMers. What does that mean for the immigration battle on Capitol Hill? I'll be talking to Georgia Senator David Perdue who's been in on all those talks with the White House. Also, the Trump Dossier, at least one Republican lawmaker pushing to declassify the Justice Department and FBI files on the matter, what does he want to find? We'll be asking him. Congressman Ron DeSantis of the House Judiciary Committee, he joins me live. Plus Maria sits down with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and she gets his take the current state of the economy as we look ahead right here today on "Sunday Morning Futures."

The Trump administration will resume accepting applications for DACA renewals after a federal judge blocked the president's decision to end the program. But the program still faces a rather uncertain future. Congress is struggling to come up with a permanent solution for DACA as they also try to juggle funding for border security and Mr. Trump's long-promised wall. President Trump's venting his frustration on Twitter just this morning saying "DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don't really want it. They just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our military." My next guest took part in immigration talks at the White House just last week. Joining me right now is Senator David Perdue of Georgia. Good to have you here Senator.

SEN. DAVID PERDUE, R-GA.: Good morning Trish.

REGAN: Is he right? Do the Democrats not really want DACA?

PERDEU: Well the evidence is they've been trying to do this for a number of years without any success. Three times in the last 11 years we've tried to solve this immigration issue. But the President has been very clear that any solution to DACA must include border security including the wall, an end to chain migration and end this diversity of Visa lottery. What we had last week were two meetings at the White House. The President is very engaged in this issue just like he was on tax. I'm hopeful that we have now opposing proposals that will allow us to get symmetry in this negotiation. In my business experience, that's how you get to deal and I still think we have a possibility to do that. Look, 72 percent of Americans want this to happen. They want to end the chain migration. They want immigration limited to the worker, the spouse, and the immediate children in that family. And I think what we're going to do here is see once we get past the funding deadline, which should have nothing to do with DACA, we will move on to hopefully a bipartisan solution to DACA and our immigration system.

REGAN: Yes, but you know, when it comes to a solution, you point out your business experience. I mean, you've got to negotiate right? One side has to offer up something, the other side has to offer up something and the impression we're certainly getting at least out of the left is that they are not willing to allow one single dollar to go to a so-called wall because the wall symbolize everything that they will dislike about our President. So how are going to get that?

PERDUE: Well, this is -- well, this is outrageous actually. It's a gross distraction away from the issue. The issue is this, the Democrats have tried for years and the DREAMer Act in2013 of Schumer and Durbin both talked about ending parts of chain migration so we're doing things that the Democrats have voted for and have supported in the past. Just in the 90s under Bill Clinton, we had a presidential commission actually recommend an end to chain migration and move to a merit-based immigration system, more based on who you are and not where you're from. And so, this is a point where most of the things we're talking about Democrats have actually voiced some support for over time. The problem now is you've got the politics involved in Washington. That's what's so frustrating to all of us out in the real world.

REGAN: You know, I get it. I mean watching that meeting, by the way, that was exciting to see. I got to tell you just as a bystander, watching that whole thing. You were in on the meeting, correct? I mean, it --

PERDUE: I was in both meetings last week in the White House and I've got to tell you the President was pillared because he did -- he made it open to the public. I mean, this was the most open and transparent dialogue that we've ever had on immigration. And this President's instinct, I think the media was supposed to be in there for five or 10 minutes, Trish, and they were in there for over 55 minutes. So this President saw a need to be transparent with the American people. He wants to see that both sides, while we differ there's enough common ground that we can get to a solution here if we have a genuine effort to do that.

REGAN: Well it certainly sounded like that. I mean, watching that meeting again, just as a spectator, it really felt as though there might be some room for negotiation, there might be room for some compromise. And then, you know, fast forward and now suddenly we're back to sound bites in the media where everybody is saying that you know, they're digging in their heels and nothing is going to get done. And I just question really whether anything can get done where we're living in such a polarized political environment. How do you break through?

PERDUE: It has to get done. Trish, 72 percent of Americans want to get this done. And this is, you know, we've limited the conversation. The President now has been successful just last week in limiting the scope of this. Look, Congress has failed three times in the last 11 years, Trish, because they've been too comprehensive. They tried to solve the illegal problem, the temporary work Visa problem and the illegal immigration problem at the same time. What we're doing now is limiting this debate to just the legal immigration system and I believe we can get to a solution. Look I've been in big deals in the private sector and I can tell you that this is a deal to get done. The natural symmetry is there to get this deal done between a DACA solution and ending this chain migration and at the same time, providing for the security of our country on our borders.

REGAN: Senator, the wall itself, the President promised over and over and over again that Americans weren't going to pay for it. Now, we're learning it's you know, going to cost a lot of money and the money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately, who will be on the hook for the wall? Is it the American taxpayer?

PERDUE: Well it's a great question. It's a great question and what we have here is a proposal that came to us last Thursday from Senator Durbin and Senator Graham that would cost us according to Congressional Budget Office over $26 billion. The wall right now, the President is asking for funding of about 18 billion. And right now, when you have the growing economy that we see right now because the President said job one this year, this past year was growing the economy and he focused on three things. He focused on energy, regulations, and tax and we've been successful in moving the ball in all three of those areas and we see the economy moving now. And so we get an economy going, we get trade deals done with Mexico and other countries. We'll find a way to fund that wall. It's a national security issue, Trish. This is not just an immigration issue as we well know.

REGAN: Yes, so you know, there's still some opportunity I would think there via these trade deals that can be renegotiated where we wouldn't be paying for the wall. You mentioned the economy Senator, and I'm glad you brought that up because it looks as though by all accounts the economy is doing pretty great right now. You've got GDP upwards of three percent, you've got record low unemployment, you've got wages going up finally by the way because company after company, Walmart included in that group is coming out and saying that they're going to give back to their employees, that they're raising wages, they're giving out bonuses. But you know, there's still sort of a mentality among the left if you would right now, where they're not willing to praise the economy yet. Is that also in your view entirely motivated by politics?

PERDUE: Trish, if this were any other president, getting the results that we're getting right now in the economy, we would be crawling about the results. Two million new jobs created last year, 860 regulations pulled back, 500 people bureaucrats fired at the V.A. for non-performance, 300 fired at the Department of Education. Consumer confidence is up at a16- year high. CEO confidence is at 20-year high, 123 companies decided to give year-end bonuses related to this tax deal. Trish, I'll tell you, this economy is beginning to move and what we have to do now is focus on immigration and infrastructure and trade to keep moving the economy forward. Those are the priorities that this President has. Look, this President's agenda is working and most people in America know that. So what you have now is an outcry from the left that oh, my goodness, look at all these distractions. The American people are not going to be fooled by that and I'm very anxious to continue to get the truth out before them.

REGAN: Senator before I let you go, what happened in Hawaii?

PERDUE: Well, I don't know the details yet but it just heightens the fact that you know, somebody made a mistake somewhere. And as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I can assure you we'll get to the bottom of that this week.

REGAN: Yes, that's scary stuff because you know --

PERDUE: Very.

REGAN: -- you never know what can happen in the interim between you know, getting an alarm like that and what our response would be.

PERDUE: Trish, we all grew up -- I grew up in a nuclear halo -- with a nuclear halo with the Soviet Union and the United States in the Cold War. And I can tell you, the world is more dangerous right now than any time in my lifetime. It heightens the fact that this President by reengaging with the rest of the world, in fact, is making the world safer. Look what he did with NATO. He threatened to back out of NATO as a candidate. Everybody, oh, my goodness you cannot do that, you can't even threaten to do that. Well, guess what, the United -- the NATO nations are actually stepping up now and moving forward and increasing their funding for their military.

REGAN: How about that.

PERDUE: The President is also -- the President is -- you know, how about that? The President is also moved to find funding, putting pressure in Congress to find funding to increase readiness of our own troops after eight years of disinvestment. So the agenda is working, people are noticing that, and -- but we have a realization that we have a debt crisis and a national security crisis that he's beginning to focus on.

REGAN: He's got his work cut out from. All right, Senator Perdue, thank you so much. It's good to have you here this morning.

PERDUE: Thanks, Trish. Tell Maria to get better.

REGAN: I will. I will. All right, it's been certainly a week of controversy over the Trump dossier. Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis, he wants to declassify those files around the same time a top Democrat released the testimony of Fusion GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson. What does Congressman Ron DeSantis hope to learn in all of this? I'm going to ask him when he joins us next. And remember, you can follow us on Twitter @SundayMorningFutures, stay with us. Much more to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REGAN: The Chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security Ron DeSantis is now calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to declassify the Trump Dossier files. This comes as Senator Dianne Feinstein released the full testimony of Glenn Simpson. He's the Co-Founder of that firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS. Congressman Ron DeSantis, he joins me right now. He also sits on both the Judiciary -- House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees. Congressman good to have you here. Where we --

REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLA., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY: Good morning.

REGAN: Where are we right now on this because it feels as though it's been going on and on and on and on and we also have a whole lot of questions and I know you do as well. Do you feel like you're making any progress?

DESANTIS: Well, I think we are. Actually the Fusion GPS transcripts of Glenn Simpson's testimony, I thought was really devastating to people who have been supporting the dossier. I mean, in those Transcripts Simpson claims that the FBI had an informant inside the Trump campaign, that's verifiably false. He claimed that Christopher Steel went to the FBI because he just had this crisis and confidence of what was going on and felt he had to do it. He didn't mention that one of the top-ranking Justice Department official Bruce Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS. It's much more likely that that's reason why the FBI got involved. And then he claimed incredibly that even though he personally met with that Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya the day before the day of--

REGAN: Good job on that pronouncement by the way.

DESANTIS: -- yes, and the day after the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. and Manafort, he said well, I never knew that. We never discussed that. If you believe they never discussed that meeting the day before the day of and the day after then I've got Ocean Front property at Arizona I'd like to sell you. So it just wasn't a credible presentation. So I think the reason why I want to declassify this stuff is because there's so -- been so much misinformation and disinformation put out propagated by groups like Fusion but also by the press which has their narrative and they want to further it, and I think the American people could learn the truth by just releasing the document so that we know how all this transpired.

REGAN: What do you think really happened? I mean the concern, of course, being that possibly our government used a phony document, a politically- motivated document by the Fusion GPS to then go in and wiretap the Trump campaign. Do you believe that may be the case?

DESANTIS: So I have not been able to review the documents yet. We're going to try to get all the House members to have access. I obviously want to have access personally, but credible reports that I trust have said that this dossier was used to get surveillance. And so the question is Trish, one did the FBI know that this was funded by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton and if they did, and they still used it, without really corroborating anything, because remember James Comey even as late as the Spring of 2017 said this thing was unverified. So why would you use it if you know it was political opposition research. But I think the flip side is also interesting. If they didn't know it came from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, then how much due diligence did they really do on this document that did they just take it at face value? So I think we need to know what all else was going into this. I want to know what the role of Peter Strzok, the famous -- infamous FBI Agent who said we can't afford to take the risk of a Trump presidency and we you need an insurance policy. He was one of the lead agents on both the Hillary case and Trump Russia collusion. I want to know more about the role of Bruce Ohr whose wife worked for Fusion GPS and I want to know more about the relationship between the FBI and Christopher Steel. The answer to all those questions I think will better inform was this an example of the government really working with one campaign against another, if so that's obviously very, very problematic.

REGAN: Yes indeed and I you know, I suppose mission accomplished as far as Russia goes, because if they were feeding disinformation to us via Christopher Steel, then they've succeeded in creating this kind of chaos and lack of trust in the very thing that makes us the great country we are. George Papadopoulos, let me ask you about him because he's now being focused on as one of the reasons why the FBI may have gotten involved in all of this. So that's a little bit of a twist and turn in the narrative. And at first we're hearing it was maybe because of the dossier, and now it's because well George Papadopoulos was effectively saying that there were connections with the Russians that would perhaps reveal Hillary Clinton's e-mails during that campaign and that is what may have prompted them. What do you think of that story?

DESANTIS: Well, to me, that seems like somebody's interested in putting out information to deemphasize the role of the dossier because I think people who may have been involved with this know the dossier is problematic and is not going to make them look good if they were involved in that. So I think that was put out deliberately. I mean, look, here is my thing. I don't know if it was true or not but I can tell you that to start a major investigation based off some drunk 28-year-old talking about saying the Russians have dirt on Hillary, I mean, I don't know that they would start investigations on something so thin, so in some ways, the dossier even though it was not verified and it's really been discredited at least it's alleging things that could -- that would be serious if true. Papadopoulos is just saying, hey, we hear the Russians have dirt on Hillary, I think that would be very thin to start investigations. So I am definitely interested on how the investigation started. I'm more interested what was done with this stuff to spy on Americans. But I think that that's an important question and it doesn't really make sense to me that Papadopoulos would have been the main guy. And remember, even as early as a couple months ago, James Clapper, the head of national intelligence said he had never heard of Papadopoulos before.

REGAN: No, I mean, you ask all of the right questions here. I think Americans deserve answers for sure because it's very disturbing. When we think about the Russians being able to infiltrate our system, this is one example if they were able to put this disinformation out there where they could really have done some damage. And by the way, they kind of already have because here we are talking about it. Anyway, I hope you get the answers you need. Thank you so much, sir. It's good to see you today.

DESANTIS: Thank you.

REGAN: President Trump pushed through tax reform so what should be next on his agenda? The CEO of JPMorgan Chase is giving his assessment of the brand new law and tells Maria Bartiromo what he wants to see next from this administration as we look ahead here on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REGAN: You know the U.S. economy continues to improve. We've got a record here on Wall Street. All start by anticipation about changes regarding our tax laws. So what is next on President Trump's agenda now that tax reform is done and in the books? Well the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, he discusses the next step that he'd like to see from the administration and from Congress. What is needed to keep our economy going? And here in an exclusive interview with our very own Maria Bartiromo. Watch it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JP MORGAN CHASE: Number one, I think four percent is possible. Number two, members of the fed also has to react to what he sees so it's not going to act not knowing what's going on. So if you have a strong economy, they will raise rates more. But the strong economy will dwarf the effects of higher rates so you got to look -- you got to look at both sides and then selling bonds. I mean, the American economy is worth $100 trillion. They're selling 10 billion a month and that number will eventually go to 50 billion a month. Again if you have a very strong economy, I'm not sure that's really consequential. There might be a point in time when the fed isn't taking a favorable outcome, inflation -- think of 2019, inflation is too high, they got to sell more bonds and they're going to raise rates faster than people think. That's when it gets really tough to be of that and not when you have a real strong economy which gives them a lot of leeway to do various things.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: So it sounds like you are comfortable with monetary policy slowly going away and fiscal policy taking center stage?

DIMON: Yes.

BARTIROMO: What's the disconnect then? I mean, loan growth, just OK in certain areas, you've got an economy that seems like it's firing on all cylinders and yet you've got trading under some pressure, you've got loan growth not where one would expect?

DIMON: You know, loan growth is -- that's hard one to figure out. So part of it, when it comes to large corporations, they always have a choice. It doesn't have to go in the loan or go to public markets. They can get it from overseas, they can do various things. But you are absolutely right. In the middle market where you would expect to see a little more growth today and you haven't. And again, I think it may just be a little delayed. It may be just a timing issue when we look at it in the short run and you know, small business volume seems OK, real estate is OK, so you know, mortgages is fine. Obviously, it will be affected by rates going up but so far it looks like the economy is healthy. And somehow it may end up (INAUDIBLE) eventually.

BARTIROMO: So how do you get more lending in housing for those lower FICO score people?

DIMON: That's a great question. I've been begging our government for years that we because of servicing costs, you know there are 3,000 -- when we send you a bill for a mortgage now in certain states 3,000 requirements to service that mortgage, hugely costly and hugely risky too to the servicer. In addition to that, it costs more money to produce loans and there had been so much litigation around it. There are a lot of lenders have been much more elected to make loans precisely to the lower income, lower FICO, self-employed prior defaults and that could be fixed very quickly. So I'm hoping -- and the other thing, we have so many people involved in the housing policy. I think there's seven regulars who actually set these policies. They've got to get in a room and finish that. If they do that, the cost of mortgage will go down for Americans and you'll make it not only the cost but it will go down for everybody but it will also open a whole segment. In fact, JPMorgan economist estimates that had we done what I would consider the right thing, not going back to subprime, just opening up these requirements a little bit, we might have been doing half a trillion dollars more a year -- a year. And that alone is you have a 0.2 percent growth a year. And so I think that is one of the first thing that the administration could do that could actually help immediately. Make mortgages more accessible and cheaper for everybody. And there's no risk to it, OK? Everything has been written since the great recession has been absolutely pristine.

BARTIROMO: You're the chairman of the business roundtable. What does business want to see in terms of policy from this administration?

DIMON: Yes. So the first thing was competitive tax reform, you know, and that was there. Now you didn't see any of the BRT & Co's, at least I didn't see them talking about individual, my personal cut. They said we need for America a (INAUDIBLE) competitive taxes and we got that. I think the next things are on the administration agenda, infrastructure reform it's complex. You know, there's bridges and ports and highways, and FAA, and highway taxes and state and local, but it could be done permitting what I mentioned before, inner-city school education, you know, something that I think we could all fix, where we call smart regulation and while we do this we should do things to help the people in America left behind. I think it is true people are left behind. I think we should expand the arrogant tax credit. I think we should do a better job in fiscal education.

BARTIROMO: But as you say the criticism on both sides, that's getting in the way. The infrastructure plan, you think these two sides can work together and get something done?

DIMON: I don't know. But here's what I think. They should. If they are Americans and they're patriotic, infrastructure -- democrats, Republicans both want it.

BARTIROMO: Are you expecting to finance some of the infrastructure programs?

DIMON: Yes, but I think it's more -- I mean if you said permitting that will just speed up what happens. If you said the highway tax credit -- the highway tax gas bill that will just get more building into highways so if we get more infrastructure, obviously, financial institutions will do -- will get more financing, but we would have to change the policies and procedures to get that done.

BARTIROMO: And that's jobs.

DIMON: It's jobs and it's just like that.

BARTIROMO: Real quick on markets here. With this tax plan and the savings for corporate America, would you expect the deal flow to continue and pick up in 18 and IPO's, obviously that was a slow start this past year.

DIMON: Yes, I think so. I mean, we see a lot of M&A chatter and enough dialogue activity. You know, companies want to -- most companies want to grow and expand and acquire or build and that's mostly natural state. The natural state isn't to buy back stock and do dividends. And so, I think you will see that and just having the competitive tax rate or growing economy will probably enhance that a little bit.

BARTIROMO: And Jamie, any thoughts on rates and the fact they're so low. I mean, the 10 years of constant quandary?

DIMON: Look, they've been lower much longer than people think but with these short, we're on the tenure and they've gone up slower than people thought. I think that's going to be pointing timing up faster than people think. And I don't know if that now that inflection point but it wouldn't surprise me if that sometime in the next six to nine months but if it's for good reason a strong American economy that's OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

REGAN: a lot of good ideas from Jamie. Well, big changes could be ahead everyone for NAFTA. What would that mean for the auto business? One of the industry's biggest players is joining me here live as we look ahead today on "Sunday Morning Futures." I'll see you here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REGAN: President Trump says he's open to extending talks with Mexico and Canada in terms of updating NAFTA beyond March and into the summer to avoid any uncertainty ahead of Mexico's presidential election of course in July. Now, this comes as the President previously threatened to withdraw from the trade agreement unless major changes were made in terms of the negotiations. Any changes to NAFTA will likely have a big impact on the auto industry. Carlos Ghosn is the Chairman and CEO of the Renault Nissan- Mitsubishi Alliance and Chairman of Nissan Motor Company and he joins me right here on set right now. It's good to see you.

CARLOS GHOSN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, RENAULT NISSAN-MITSUBISHI ALLIANCE: Good to see you, Trish.

REGAN: Changes to trade agreements, how does that affect the industry? How does it affect your company?

GHOSN: Well, it will affect a lot. So that's why we are all extremely attentive to what's going to happen. The fact that NAFTA is being renegotiated seems a little bit normal. This is a 23-24 years old agreement. The reality of the three-country change during the last 23 years. The fact that there is a reset for this agreement, it's fine. It's something very logical. Obviously the outcome will have a lot of importance for all of the car manufacturers because we have based a supply system on North America for the North American Market. If anything needs to happen here, it will have major impact on us much.

REGAN: So are you concerned this will hurt your industry?

GHOSN: It will. It may depending -- obviously we don't know how it's going to be changed but we will be paying a lot of attention to the outcome of the negotiation.

REGAN: All right, well, one of the things he's talked about is having some kind of fair trade, free-trade and fair trade are different in that you know, if we're bringing in goods cheaply into our country, they, in turn, should be doing the same. In other words, if he doesn't want tariffs happening on the other side, and you look to a country like China for example, where it's a whole lot more expensive to buy an American car in China because of the tariffs they put on as opposed to if you were to buy it, you know, here. We don't do the same kind of thing. So when you say it's going to hurt your industry, is it really or is it just going to change your industry?

GHOSN: Look, it's very difficult to assess because we don't know what's going to be the outcome. We don't know what's going to be the outcome. Obviously, it's a very important agreement. NAFTA is a very important agreement for all car makers. We all based our investments and our supply system in function of the present agreement. Now the future agreement, if there is any future agreement will have an impact on us so we'll have to be patient, wait and see. Obviously, we are in contact with the administration to explain all of the pros and the cons of all of the changes. We will be waiting for the outcome.

REGAN: What's your thought on tax reform?

GHOSN: Well, I think it's a good thing because obviously, we will be sustaining economic activity. In fact, I think thanks to the tax reform, we were expecting the market to go down, the car market to go down in 2018, I don't think it will. I think it will be remaining stable so it's going to be sustaining activity.

REGAN: So, in other words, people will have more money in their pockets, they will go out and buy a new car. It's good for the industry.

GHOSN: It's very positive, very positive.

REGAN: Positive for the American economy?

GHOSN: Yes.

REGAN: And does it mean at some point that you might actually at least for any plans here start paying your workers more?

GHOSN: Well, the fact that it is a very positive event makes us review the perspective for the year 2018 even further. And with this, decisions will be made inconsequence. It's too early to say what we're going to do but without any doubt, it's going into the right direction.

REGAN: You know, Carlos, it's amazing that company after company, hundreds have come out said we're going to give our workers a bonus, we're ease on Walmart raising the minimum wage at all of its stores to $11 an hour and providing up to a thousand dollars in bonuses. And that's just as I said one of hundreds. And they're saying it's because of tax reform, that they're able to do this. You know, the fear among some CEO's was that the companies would horde the money and we would see a lot of share buybacks and dividend plays and that it wouldn't actually translate into much for the American worker, and yet already, knock-on-wood, it is. Do you expect that to continue? It sounds like you do.

GHOSN: Yes, I do. I do. I expect this to continue and you are talking about the perspective also of a deal on infrastructure. This is also another potential very good news to sustain the economy. So we think presently the U.S. economy is one of the very positive spots on the planet and this is something that industry likes and this is something that industry would like to sustain. So if we get into a kind of virtual circle where, you know, the policy change and then companies respond to the policy change positively, this can be positive for everybody. It has to be win- win in order to be sustainable.

REGAN: Jamie Dimon is predicting four percent growth. Do you think it could happen?

GHOSN: Yes, well, great news. I think what he said -- I followed what he said. I think this is -- I believe what he said. I think his logic is very solid and this makes me more optimistic for the U.S. for 2018 and beyond.

REGAN: So how -- to get away from the rhetoric for a second and the personality because I understand how polarizing he can be but when you look at the policy itself, at least as far as the economy is concerned, let's forget immigration and all of the other stuff, the economic policy that's coming out of Washington how do you grade it?

GHOSN: Well as a business person, I just applaud this economy. Obviously, I --

REGAN: And there for the President as well?

GHOSN: Exactly. That means -- you need to give the President the merit of being the main person responsible for the economy and all the decisions which are being taken are very positive. As a business person, I applaud it.

REGAN: That's a little dangerous for you to say.

GHOSN: No.

REGAN: I only point that out because --

GHOSN: I'm very factual. I'm very factual. I'm not a U.S. citizen. I don't live here. I live between Paris and Tokyo. All my companies obviously operate in the United States. We look at it as you said independently of any other conservation. We look at the economy, the economy is going well.

REGAN: You know that I only say that because there has been CEO's that have said similar things and their customers go bonkers, but I think it's honest of you and fair of you to look at the policy itself and tell us what you think that policy means for our economy. Tell me about the auto show?

GHOSN: Yes, well, the auto show is going to be another good show. Obviously, it started -- I mean, Detroit is one step but before Detroit, you had the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas which was mainly about cars. I mean we're mainly talking about cars, cars of the future. This was about electric cars, it's about autonomous car, driverless cars, it's about connected cars. So I think the consumer electronics show was a little bit the opening salvo of the car moment that will end with the Detroit motor show and with L.A.

REGAN: It's so -- by the way, I am really anxious, I got to tell you for this driverless car because I'm not a big fan of driving. Realistically, I mean, when are they going to be for mass consumption

GHOSN: Look for mass consumption -- you have them today already. You have a lot of driverless cars being driven --

REGAN: By the way, and I've heard from my friends in Silicon Valley, you know, you go down the highway there to Menlow Park and nobody is actually really doing much as far as driving goes because so much is actually automated.

GHOSN: Exactly.

REGAN: But when is it really going to be for everyone?

GHOSN: Mass marketing -- mass marketing. Mass marketing, I would predict that this will come between 2021 and 2022. Why? First, because the technology is still not robust enough to face the scrutinity of the regulator. So we need to work still on the robustness. And second, we need also the regulator to accept the fact that on a mass marketing point of view you're going to have plenty of cars without a driver. So I would say prototypes are ready, 2018-2019, we want to be -- continue to work on robustness of the system, 2021 would be my guess.

REGAN: That is not very far away

GHOSN: No it's tomorrow.

REGAN: That's great. All right, that's good news for me. And for, you know a lot of Americans because I think it's going to make things much safer.

GHOSN: Without any doubt -- without any doubt. 90 percent -- more than 90 percent of the car accidents are due to human mistakes, and driverless cars you got to eliminate this 90 percent. You have 1.4 million casualties a year on the planet.

REGAN: I know, it's tragic. Well Carlos, thank you so much. It's good to see you and I do appreciate that. I mean that because I think too often, policy gets distorted by emotion and we need to be fair to the actual policy which you are sir. Thank you. Good luck on the car show.

GHOSN: Thank you.

REGAN: All right everyone, a federal judge's decision leads to the Trump administration accepting DACA renewals again. Where does the immigration site go now? We're going to ask our panel next as we look ahead here on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REGAN: The Trump administration is once again taking applications on DACA following a federal judge's temporary injunction against the President' efforts to end the program. Let's get to our panel. Ed Rollins, he's a former Campaign Manager for the Reagan-Bush ticket back in 1984. He's also the Campaign Chairman for Arizona Senate candidate Kelli Ward and Al D'Amato is a former New York Senator. It's good to have you both here. You're both Fox News Contributors. Where is this thing going, Ed?

ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well I think -- I think the court -- and I never hear the court interfere with the President but I think the court in this particular case is giving them some time. The important thing here is to get the budget done and not complicate it. We can't have another continuing resolution for any other period of time, otherwise, we seriously affect the defense budget. So my sense is get that budget done, don't do a continuing resolution, have a full-scale immigration which may take a period of time in which you have the security element and you have the immigration element and you have DACA as a part of that.

REGAN: Do you think Senator that you can actually do those things in conjunction with each other though because we're getting or hearing that there's much, much resistance from the Democratic Party when it comes to say funding the border wall and that to them is a non-starter. If there's a wall, do we not get anything else done?

AL D'AMATO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well I think Ed has got it absolutely right. Number one, you got to do the budget. If you don't do the budget, you are impairing hundreds of millions of people, all of entitlement programs and Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and then the military. We just cannot afford to have the budget stripped down. DACA is important. I think you know, 80 percent of the American public want these youngsters to be able to have a pathway to citizenship. But if you think you're going to get it done in today's political climate, we're not. Not if you make it part of the budget process. That has to be done within the next two weeks. And so I say, get the budget done and then concentrate on an immigration policy.

REGAN: It sounds like you guys are in agreement on this.

ROLLINS: I think we are. I think we're two old guys who's bee (INAUDIBLE) and have watched it work. And I think the only comment I'm going to make about the President, the President gets very careful with his words. Words matter in Washington D.C. It's not about interpretation, its words matter. We grew up in all odds, where sticks and stones can break your bones and words can never harm you. Words harm you and words particularly harm you when you're in a place like this. You can't be insulting people and I think to a certain extent, this President has had an extraordinary opportunity here to move the tax bill through, the economy is moving and he keep stepping on his own story by these things like he did last week.

REGAN: Well, you know, in his defense though, it's challenging when you are living in such a polarized political environment. And I think that you know, he had emerged from that first meeting last week. Looking pretty good, because he was in control, he seemed willing to negotiate with all sides, and I just question the timing, why this was leaked. You know, yes, see he shouldn't have said it. I hear you, but --

D'AMATO: And Ed again is right. Maybe only one of us just (INAUDIBLE). The fact of the matter is that he had everything going his way. Why he had to use that language is ridiculous. Here we had the economy -- the economy is booming, the stories should be Walmart and the other companies that have given two million people bonuses of a thousand dollars, two million, that you raised a level of pay from $9 to $11 and you hear Nancy Pelosi saying this is crumbs. By the way, if you're making $9 an hour and then it goes to 11 for 40 hours that's $80 a week. For those people, that's big, a thousand dollar bonus, you may say it's crumbs but to those people, it's big. Why do you have to use incendiary language? So the President has set back the process. No doubt about it. And he could have taken credit for this economy booming and for people already getting the benefit of the tax plan.

REGAN: But you know Ed, you know him well and unfortunately, sometimes it's how he talks.

ROLLINS: No, listen. He's not going to change and I think somehow the problem is there's nobody around him. Other presidents and past presidents come and sort of given a little guidance on the game. And I think to a certain extent you talk about the meeting where he has a Congressman in there. I mean, we've been in lots of meetings with members of Congress and you don't negotiate in a Cabinet meeting. You basically go in there and say here's our position, here's what we want. Have some dialogue. You don't bring the media into the show. It was a show. And it was a show with lots of conflicts. And when you say send me any bill, I'll sign it, that's not true. No President is going to sign any bill that comes from a Congress that's split as badly as this one is. And if he does he's a fool, and this President is not a fool. So my sense is the way people like the first part of the meeting and didn't like the later. I think this President is getting very disciplined to understand what his plan is and move forward, you can have great success.

REGAN: Well his plan is to get some kind of deal. I mean, that's what he said. He's OK with the deal for the DREAMers provided we get the wall and provided there's a change in our immigration policy --

ROLLINS: Has to be.

REGAN: -- and chain migration. You know, I think that he just -- he has to find a way to breakthrough this partisanship.

ROLLINS: Well the President -- the President has to be -- I'm sorry -- the President has to be the court of last resort. He can't be -- he thinks about -- negotiating is I want to sell you a bill that I want $10 million you want to give me nine that's negotiation. In Congress every word matters, every single thing -- piece of legislation matters.

REGAN: All right. Well, good points from both of you. Stay with me. Scary moments in Hawaii everyone on ballistic missile warnings, a warning. It turned out to be a false alarm because somebody pushed the wrong button. How in the world does something like that happen? We're going to be back with the panel as we look ahead here on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REGAN: This is very unbelievable. Much of Hawaii was in a state of panic yesterday after the state's emergency management agency mistakenly sent out an alert warning, alert that warned of an imminent ballistic missile strike. Officials later confirming someone pushed the wrong button. Oh, my goodness, we're back with our panel Ed Rollins and former Senator Al D'Amato. How does that happen? I mean, can you imagine by the way if you were in Hawaii and you got some kind of alert on your phone saying a ballistic missile was heading your way?

ROLLINS: And the problem is we're far more sensitive to ballistic missiles because of the North Korea situation. So my sense is people were absolutely in panic. That -- we have to go back and have a failsafe system. You know, Al and I grew up in an age where you used to do nuclear tests and roll up in a ball (INAUDIBLE) but we're way beyond that and I think to a certain extent, you have to -- we have this instant communications that everybody is on the phone. You have to make sure it's fail safe

REGAN: I mean, again, I just go back to how does something like that happen? You think about gosh, you know, just to get on to my darn computer at work, I got to put in all these passwords and it's not easy and yet, it had to have been relatively easy it seems as though, you know somebody here pushed the wrong button.

D'AMATO: First of all, if you lived in Hawaii, you had to be frightened out of your mind, if you had relatives or friends there and heard about this. But how is -- if one person could push this button and set this off? Where are the checks and balances on this? And so maybe it's a good thing so that we get on to it because there is a potential, we hope that it's remote but it's there and we had better look at all of the systems throughout the state. And you just can't say it's the state's fault. Well, everybody had better wake up about this and see to it that we have emergency systems, particularly as it relates to missiles coming in that work and there are minimum standards that have to be set.

ROLLINS: We have to secure North Korea and we have to basically make sure they're not doing these tests and all the rest of the stuff that's created. It's created an environment that this thing going --

REGAN: Well, you mention that it has created this environment and you wonder what the national security risk could have been if somebody had thought that that was right.

ROLLINS: We only month what the public did. We don't know what the military did. Obvious I'd assume if something like this went off, the military basically with their submarines (INAUDIBLE) I'm sure went to some degree of alert. It should have.

REGAN: Ed, Senator, it's so good to see you guys. Thank you so much.

ROLLINS: Thank you.

REGAN: All right, that going to do it for us here on "Sunday Morning Futures." I'm Trish Regan in today for Maria Bartiromo. "MediaBuzz" with Howard Kurtz is up next and I will see you Monday and all next week at 2:00 p.m. on the Fox Business Network. Have a terrific weekend.


Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.