Rep. Meadows: Pelosi is driving conversation over partial government shutdown negotiations

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," December 23, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo.

Joining us exclusively straight ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" this morning, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows is here. He told President Trump his members would have the presidents' back over a partial government shutdown.

Republican Senator David Perdue on when this stalemate might end.

Plus, also coming up, Democratic Congressman David Cicilline on his party's pending investigations into the Trump administration, and Republican John Ratcliffe on what happens now to all the GOP probes into the FBI and the DOJ.

Plus, General Jack Keane is here on the fallout from the Mattis resignation.

And my Christmas conversation with New York Archbishop Cardinal Timothy Dolan, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.

And Americans get a partial government shutdown for Christmas. It will continue until at least Thursday of this upcoming week, when the Senate has its next session.

The big stumbling block in negotiations is funding the president's border wall, with the president demanding $5 billion to fund it, while Democrats continue to say no. Nancy Pelosi says it's immoral.

This morning, President Trump taking to Twitter to write this: "The only way to stop drugs, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements, and much else from coming into our country is with a wall or a barrier. Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun, but it is only a good old- fashioned wall that works."

President Trump had a lunch meeting with conservative lawmakers yesterday about border security.

And one of those lawmakers in attendance is my first guest this morning. He told the president he would have his back if it came to this.

North Carolina Congressman Mark Meadows is with us, joining us for an exclusive interview this morning. He's a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Maria, great to be with you. Thanks so much.

BARTIROMO: First, give us a status check. Where are we in terms of these negotiations, Congressman? What are the sticking points now?

MEADOWS: Well, I think the sticking point is really that Nancy Pelosi is driving most of this negotiation.

You would think it would be Chuck Schumer. But I can tell you, based on conversations I have had as recent as this morning, it seems like Nancy Pelosi is actually the leader, the minority leader in the -- in the Senate.

And so they have come in at impasse. This is all about trying to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't secure the border. And it's really more out of their dislike for this president than really about the communities that they are -- really should be upholding to make sure that they're safe.

BARTIROMO: Well, I think this is a really important point that you're making, because this is supposed to be about border security. And the Democrats always say, we are for border securities.

And yet we haven't seen any votes yes on ending sanctuary cities, on voting for Kate's Law, on the border wall. So, I mean, there's -- the only other one thing you could think about what this means, and they just don't want the president to fulfill another campaign promise.

MEADOWS: Well, you're exactly right, Maria.

And I think the other part of that is, is every single Democrat will come on and say that they're for border security. They are except, for one problem. Their vote doesn't match their rhetoric. And so we're looking for compromise.

I can tell you, I was with the president and his team yesterday. I saw Mick Mulvaney earlier this morning. They're looking for ways to make sure that we can get this done. Hopefully, we will.

But I can tell you, it seems like the Democrats have -- have dug in and are trying to make sure that this shutdown lasts a lot longer than it should.

BARTIROMO: Well, I mean, you're looking at next week, when the Senate resumes on the 27th.

But what if it does -- how are you going to get them to agree on the 27th to come up with the money for the border wall? I mean, what happens if this goes into January? Don't you have a worse-off situation once the Democrats take the majority in the new Congress?

MEADOWS: Well, without a doubt.

When the Democrats are in control of the House, certainly, the 217 Republicans that voted with the president just a few days ago, we will be in the minority. But I think it's all about having options.

We spend billions of dollars, Maria -- and maybe this is a solution -- we spend billions of dollars every year in improper payments. So maybe Senator Schumer would -- would go with me and say anything that we recover, that, we can spend on the wall. That's one option that he wouldn't even have to appropriate.

There are a number of options that wouldn't cost the American taxpayer money, and yet would secure our border. I think cooler heads need to prevail.

BARTIROMO: What are you negotiating at now, in terms of numbers? The president said $5 billion. Is he willing to accept under $3 billion? What's the neighborhood that's being discussed right now?

MEADOWS: Well, obviously, it's anywhere from $1.6 billion to $5 billion. I can tell you that there are a number of conservatives who believe that the $5 billion was already a concession.

When you look at $25 billion to build a wall, we're already -- the president's already come down to $5 billion. But, yes, there's room in there. There were conversations. Senator Graham, I was with him last night. He was talking to some of his Democrat colleagues trying to find a compromise.

But, really, what we found is, we found a wall. It's on the Democrat side, because they're not willing to do anything, and yet it's just not a position that is defensible.

BARTIROMO: Well, what about the language being used? I mean, Nancy Pelosi said a wall is immoral. Chuck Schumer said you're not going to get a wall next week, next month, next year. You're not going to get a wall.

So now the language is changing to, what, steel slats? I mean, they don't want to call it what you're actually coming up with money for?

MEADOWS: Well, the president heard that loud and clear. And he actually rolled out a different type of barrier, a steel slat barrier, we call them SSBs.

But yet you have got Nancy Pelosi, you have got Senator Schumer and others who voted for 700 miles of fencing. If they want to go ahead and appropriate the money for the other 350 miles that they didn't build on that 2006 legislation that they passed, we will help them with that.

This is not about what we call it. This is about what it is. And we need border security. The Democrats don't want it. And most Americans do.

BARTIROMO: But why would they not want it, Congressman? I mean, it sounds, like, crazy to hear you say they don't want border security. They say they do want border security. Why would they not want border security?

MEADOWS: Well, I think what it is, it's all about one campaign promise. They know that this was a central theme for this president.

And, quite frankly, it was what ultimately made the day and why Democrats came over, unaffiliateds came over and voted for this president. They know that that was the central theme for part of his campaign, and they just don't want him to fulfill it.

When we look at that, yes, they do say they're for border security, but for -- they're for everything that doesn't matter. When it really gets to sanctuary cities, or Kate's law, or a barrier, or asylum reform, they're an absolute no each and every time.

And you can look at the voting record and verify that.

BARTIROMO: But I just find it really extraordinary that, just last week, you all pass a farm bill, which costs $850 billion-plus. And so they found the money for the farm bill, which I guess had some welfare in it as well, the $860 billion, but they can't come up with $5 billion for border security.

MEADOWS: Well, Maria, you're exactly right. We have $5 billion in sugar subsidies in that very farm bill that they just put forth.

But we're not talking about money. We're talking less than one-half of one penny in terms of what we're talking about in terms of money. The president has agreed with them on over a trillion dollars of spending, and we're -- we're debating $5 billion?

BARTIROMO: Yes.

MEADOWS: It's just not a defensible position for the Democrats.

BARTIROMO: All right, so you're going to dig in. What does this mean for 2020, Congressman? Because the longer this goes on, the longer the government stays closed, the longer people call it the Trump shutdown, which is what Chuck Schumer came up with, is this going to impact 2020, reelection for President Trump?

MEADOWS: Well, it will impact President Trump, if he doesn't keep his campaign promises.

I can tell you this, that when we're looking at this, we were there at the White House yesterday. The president was trying to make sure that it had minimal impact on federal employees, minimal impact on the American people and say, how can we manage this in such a way that we stay firm and resolved, but that it doesn't have the negative implications?

And, actually, you're already starting to see this.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

MEADOWS: You will get all kinds of narratives out there, but this president is committed to making sure that America's -- American citizens are first in his mind and he keeps his campaign promise.

BARTIROMO: All right, real quick, before you go, I have got to ask you the status of your investigation into the FBI and the DOJ.

We know that, once your colleagues get in there in the majority next year, these investigations are dead. Are we going to see any accountability for what took place during the 2016 election, where a couple of people from the FBI and the DOJ tried to stop Donald Trump in any ways that they could have?

MEADOWS: Well, you have got John Ratcliffe coming on later. He's been very, very good on this particular issue. You have been very good on this issue.

I can tell you that we're going to continue to do that. The Democrats are going to do away with any official hearings, but that doesn't stop members of Congress from conducting oversight. We will continue to do that and make sure that people are held accountable.

Quite frankly, there's so much there, that the American people need transparency. And I think, when that happens, it'll be good medicine for everybody.

BARTIROMO: Well, you have got the president's ear. Would you encourage the president to declassify those documents, so the American people understand what took place?

MEADOWS: I have, and I will.

And, listen, the president's typical default is on transparency. He believes that we ought to let the Americans -- people see it, because he's not he knows what he's done and what he hadn't done. And I do think that we will see declassified documents in the weeks and months to come.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will talk more about that with Congressman John Ratcliffe coming up, who's on the Judiciary Committee.

Sir, it's good to see you this morning. We will be watching the developments. Thanks so much, Chairman.

(CROSSTALK)

MEADOWS: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Congressman Mark Meadows joining us there.

Our coverage of the partial government shutdown continues this morning with new reaction from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

First up, Georgia Republican Senator David Perdue is with me, member of the Senate Budget Committee. He joins us for an exclusive interview, now in the Senate hands.

You can follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you would like to hear from a senator, as well as a congressman coming up.

Stay with us. We're looking ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sends his colleagues home for the Christmas holiday with no new partial government shutdown deal in sight.

McConnell, for his part, had negotiated a stopgap funding bill through February 8, which the president rejected.

Georgia Republican Senator David Perdue joins me now with -- in an exclusive interview. He sits on both about the Senate Budget and Armed Services Committees.

Good to see you, Senator. Thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. DAVID PERDUE (R), GEORGIA: Good morning, Maria.

BARTIROMO: From your standpoint, where does this go from here?

PERDUE: Well, first of all, this is ridiculous.

But the president is on this 24/7. I mean, this is the second Schumer shutdown we have had just this year. The president and the Democrats earlier this week had a deal at $1.6 billion for border security, and the Democrats walked away because Pelosi felt like the Republicans couldn't pass it in the House.

Well, we not only passed in the House, but we passed a $5 billion border security package with $8 billion disaster relief. Remember, though, that, just earlier this year, Democrats, 44 Democrats in the Senate voted for a $25 billion border security package.

So, Maria, this is not about a number. This is about the Democrats not wanting the president to actually follow through on his commitment to secure that southern border.

BARTIROMO: You are saying the 44 Democrats that voted for border security was, what, in an immigration bill? When did they vote for...

PERDUE: Absolutely

Senator -- Senator Collins had an immigration bill. It was side by side. Senator Cotton and I had another bill up at the same time, and there was a $25 billion funding piece in that bill that 44 Democrats actually voted for.

And, honestly, disaster relief has also always been a bipartisan issue in the Senate. They're just trying to play politics with the security of our country, Maria. And the president's going to the mat on this one.

BARTIROMO: This...

PERDUE: But I will say this.

I was on the phone with him last night for over an hour. I was in the White House Friday. We have convinced Vice President Pence and Mulvaney to get involved. And they have been brokering this

The vice president was actually at the Capitol past 9:30 Friday night. He was over here yesterday. We had the Senate open. I actually presided for a little while in the Senate yesterday to keep it open to try to get to a solution this weekend.

BARTIROMO: So you think that they're just not agreeing to anything that even remotely sounds like or looks like a wall because it would be a campaign promise that this president actually delivered on?

You think that's all this is about?

PERDUE: Maria, I had over a half-a-dozen Senate Democrats tell me just Friday that if we called it an anything but a wall, they'd be all for it.

This is ridiculous. This is -- if the president -- if the president of the United States, President Trump, said he didn't want border security, he didn't want any money for the wall, the Democrats would be all over him, telling him, oh, no, we have got to do that.

So this is all about resisting Trump and not taking care of the business that we have as a Senate. Let me remind your viewers, though, that the reason we're here with a partial shutdown, though, is because we stayed here in August and funded 75 percent of the budget this year, the discretionary budget, which includes defense, health, education and other issues.

What's remaining mostly is the homeland security piece, which is mostly essential. The other thing that your viewers should be comfortable with is that the payrolls that go out on the 28th of this month are going out no matter what.

So, independent of what we do this week, that payroll is going to be met. It just shows, though, that this president is trying this weekend to get to a deal with the Democrats.

BARTIROMO: Yes, that's just incredible.

So, how does this play out, in your view? I mean, do you think the government opens this upcoming week, when the Senate gets back on Thursday? What's your expectation here?

PERDUE: I think we will get to a deal this week. I talked to the president last night. He wants that.

I think president -- Senator Schumer has actually been dealing this week. It's just that, at the end of the day, they have backed up from what they had already agreed to. I'm hopeful that cooler heads will prevail, we will get to some number between $1.6 billion and $5 billion on that.

Nobody's arguing about the disaster relief package. So I think we're just about there, if we would both just recognize this is not about politics, it's about the security of our country.

BARTIROMO: So, in other words, you will get you a deal likely, more than 1.6, but less than 5, and you won't call it a wall? Is that the thinking?

PERDUE: I don't care what we call it.

BARTIROMO: Right.

PERDUE: Yes, I don't care what we call it. And neither does the president.

The president is actually talking about different -- I mean, different -- but what we want is barriers, just like we have, we see in other parts of the world.

I was in Israel last year, and they have similar situation there. And they do that. Other countries do the same thing. And, as a matter of fact, Maria, in most countries, the military has a responsibility for the sovereignty of their borders.

In the United States, we have Homeland Security. So we give them the responsibility. But the military can have a play in this as well.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will leave it there.

Senator, we will be watching the developments. Really incredible, incredible content here. We will see you soon, sir. Thanks very much.

PERDUE: Yes, thanks a lot, Maria.

BARTIROMO: David Perdue.

We will have more on this partial government shutdown coming up.

As we just heard from two Republicans, one from each chamber, coming up next, we get some fresh perspective from House Democrat David Cicilline. He is here.

We will also have Texas GOP Congressman John Ratcliffe with us, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling President Trump yesterday, if he wants to fund the government, he must abandon the wall.

Meanwhile, Democrats will become the majority in the House next month. Some speculate it could be on them to end the shutdown if it gets into the new year.

We bring in now Rhode Island Congressman David Cicilline for an exclusive interview. He is the incoming chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, making him a member of the Democratic House leadership. He's also a member of the House Judiciary Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee.

And, Congressman, it's good to see you this morning.

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I.: Great to see you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us.

CICILLINE: My pleasure.

BARTIROMO: First, let's talk about this wall. You heard what my past two guests said, that this is not about border security for you and your colleagues. This is about stopping the president from having a promise delivered.

CICILLINE: Yes, not at all.

Look, it is not about border security, because Democrats support border security. We appropriated in the last two years $1.6 billion for security. And Democrats support that.

We just think it should be done in a smart way. Use technology, use sensors, use drones, use more personnel. Use it in a way that's effective.

So I think what the opposition to this, it's not a campaign promise, but it's just not good use of taxpayer money. Let's secure the borders in a cost-effective way, using the best technology that will keep our borders safe.

BARTIROMO: Why would a barrier be the wrong way? Why not have the barrier? Barriers worked elsewhere. Barriers work elsewhere in other countries as well.

CICILLINE: Well...

BARTIROMO: Why would a barrier, a wall not work? I don't understand.

CICILLINE: Well, you know, maybe that some parts of a wall makes sense some places. It's fencing some places. It's drones some places. It's satellite.

Let's let the experts decide kind of how to best use it. But what the is talking about is a $70 billion 1,000-mile wall, which just doesn't make sense. And, in fact, his own chief of staff, his incoming chief of staff, and his departing chief staff both said, this is a simplistic answer to a complicated problem. It won't work.

So I think they're right. We have got to be smart about this. We have got to do in a way which secures our borders, but doesn't squander 70 billion of taxpayer dollars just so the president can make good on a promise.

BARTIROMO: Well, wait. What is $70 billion? He wants $5 billion.

CICILLINE: No, but that's the beginning. It's a $70 billion wall.

We ought not make a down payment of $5 billion on something that doesn't make sense.

BARTIROMO: Now, you just heard Senator David Perdue say that your team has already voted for this in the immigration bill. You voted for a wall. You voted for border security.

So now, because all of a sudden it's the president keeping this campaign promise, build that wall, it's a different story.

CICILLINE: Yes, the bill he's talking about related to border security, I believe.

And I think Democrats have a long history of supporting investing in border security. In the last two years, we approved $1.6 billion. The administration has spent less than 6 percent of that. So this notion of like, this is urgent, I need the money, the president has $1.6 billion that he hasn't spent yet.

So let's -- let's just be smart about it. Democrats are as committed to border security as Republicans. Of course we are. We want to do it in a cost-effective way.

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: You say you're committed to it, Congressman, pardon me.

CICILLINE: Sure.

BARTIROMO: But you didn't vote for Kate's Law. You didn't vote for ending sanctuary cities. You're not voting for a border wall. So how can you justify saying, I am for border security, when you haven't voted it?

CICILLINE: Because we have voted for border security. And I voted for border security.

The reality is, we want to be sure that we're investing in security that works. We have great technology. We can use drones. We can use satellites. We can do cargo inspections.

Let's do things that the experts say will actually secure the border, rather than wasting money on a costly, a very costly, ineffective physical wall that just won't provide the kind of security we need.

We also need to deal with the underlying causes of immigration. We need to have additional personnel. We need to fix our broken immigration system. So there's a lot of work to be done here.

But the idea that you can simply solve the problem by just putting up a wall just won't work.

BARTIROMO: Like catch and release, right? That's one issue that people talk about. Illegals come to this country, the U.S. catches them, but then you have to release them in order to get a court date.

Do you support catch and release?

CICILLINE: No, I think the important thing is, we have asylum laws in this country.

And, fortunately, the United States Supreme Court just affirmed that, that our asylum system is the crown jewel of our immigration system. It lets people who are fleeing violence and war and famine and unspeakable conditions to come.

BARTIROMO: But we don't know that all of those people are.

CICILLINE: We don't know that, but we have a process where they can petition for asylum. Then a court makes a determination.

We have to keep those laws respected. They're part of our tradition. They're consistent with our international legal requirements.

BARTIROMO: But shouldn't those laws be protected in a legal structure...

CICILLINE: Absolutely.

BARTIROMO: ... rather than an illegal structure?

I mean, your incoming leadership -- incoming House speaker, Leader Nancy Pelosi, has called this wall immoral. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Most of us, speaking to myself, consider the wall immoral, ineffective, and expensive.

And the president said he promised it. He also promised Mexico would pay for it. So, even if they did, it's immoral still, and then they're not going to pay for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: Do you -- do you really didn't a wall is immoral? Do you think a wall is immoral?

(CROSSTALK)

CICILLINE: She said ineffective, costly and immoral.

And I think what she means by that is, it's not consistent with our values. We can have strong borders. We can enforce our immigration...

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: Well, do you keep your doors open all night? Do you keep your doors unlocked all night?

CICILLINE: No one is saying we should let people in.

We should, in fact, have border security. But we can do it in a way which is consistent with our values as a country. And so I think what the leader saying is, it's costly, it doesn't do the job, it's ineffective, and it really undermines our values, this idea of a physical barrier around our country.

BARTIROMO: Well, the values, I mean, are also based on the rule of law. And we have a legal structure in order to get into this country, because if you don't, you have a lot of illegals out there, and somebody has to pay for them.

CICILLINE: Absolutely.

BARTIROMO: Where are you going to get the hundreds of billions of dollars needed, that are required to pay for people for health care, for education, for food stamps, for all these programs that ultimately those people are going to need?

CICILLINE: I don't know a single Democrats who doesn't think that we ought not have an organized system for people to come into this country legally, who support -- every Democrat I know supports comprehensive immigration reform, supports our asylum system, supports additional personnel, additional resources.

We voted for $1.6 billion to help secure the border. So there's no disagreeing about that. The disagreement is really about this wall. And I think the truth is, there's an easy deal to be had here.

I don't think the president wants a deal. I think he wants a government shutdown. He said it himself. I think he's dealing with a secretary of defense who just rebuked him and left. He's dealing with a difficulty finding a chief of staff. The stock market tanking, he's dealing with.

BARTIROMO: How far...

CICILLINE: So I think he has a lot of things he is trying to distract from, and he's not anxious to reopen the government.

BARTIROMO: How long are you willing to go to the mat for this? I mean, are you expecting a deal in the next week to open this government, the rest of the government, by Thursday or Friday?

CICILLINE: I hope so. As I said, I think this is easy to do.

The Senate already voted for a continuing resolution 100-1. The president said he would support it. It would pass the House if the president supported it.

What changed? The president's world is starting to kind of crash on him. And so he says, I'm going to shut the government down. What are we talking about today? We're talking about the government shutdown. Mission accomplished for the president.

So I don't think he has a big interest. I think, when Democrats take back the House, we will swiftly move to reopen government.

BARTIROMO: Let me ask you about when the Democrats take over, because 40 of your colleagues have written to the leadership, saying, we don't want all of this bluster and investigative processes going on. We want real legislation. We want to do the work that the American people want us to do.

And yet we're talking about the president's tax returns, shutting down the FBI and the DOJ investigation, where we know that there was FISA abuse, et cetera.

So, what are you going to focus on once you get there?

CICILLINE: Well, you know, and I -- along with Hakeem Jeffries and Cheri Bustos, we put together the Democratic agenda for this last election cycle that demonstrated we were for the people of this country, committed to driving down health care costs, particularly the cost of prescription drugs, rebuilding the infrastructure of our country, raising family incomes, and taking on the serious corruption in Washington.

We're going to deliver on those three promises. We also have a responsibility to do oversight. But I can tell you, our first priority is going to be to get the work done for the American people.

BARTIROMO: All right, so what's your priority once you take over in the next month?

CICILLINE: I hope we're going to start off with a big democracy reform bill to help get money out of politics, to raise ethical standards, to get Washington working for the people again, and not for the special interests.

BARTIROMO: But we know that this is really all about 2020, this border fight right now.

Are you considering what all of this means in terms of your constituents going into the next election in two years, presidential election?

CICILLINE: Yes, my constituents want us to be sure that we're fulfilling all of our responsibilities, including securing our border, fixing our broken immigration system.

But they expect us to do it in a smart way, a cost-effective way. And I have confidence we will get that done.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, it's great to have you on the program.

CICILLINE: Thanks for having me.

BARTIROMO: Thanks so much for joining us this morning.

CICILLINE: My pleasure.

BARTIROMO: We will be watching the developments, Congressman David Cicilline there.

Coming up next, House Homeland Security Committee member John Ratcliffe will give us his thoughts on the partial government shutdown.

Plus, we will discuss the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis with retired Four-Star General Jack Keane, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right here.

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

The partial government shutdown continues this morning, with the battle over the border wall funding being a bone of contention between President Trump and the Democrats.

Joining me right now in an exclusive interview is Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe, member of the House Judiciary Committee and House Homeland Security Committee. He's also a former federal prosecutor.

Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Morning, Maria.

BARTIROMO: How far are you and your colleagues willing to go on this, do you think, in terms of the border wall? What can you tell us about the current negotiations and how close the Republicans are with the Democrats to actually getting the funding to open the government?

RATCLIFFE: Maria, I think it's important for people to remember the primary reason that we have a federal government is to provide for the common defense.

And part of that is securing the sovereignty and integrity of our territorial borders. That's why Donald Trump made it his number one campaign promise and why Republicans are united behind him and voted to support the construction of a border wall this week by voting for $5 billion towards that.

So it's very important. It's what we told people we would do. I think we need to take it as far as we can, until we don't control the House anymore. So I support the president with respect to this. I have heard your prior guest.

With all due respect, they keep saying they're for border security, but they keep voting against it. And so I hope that that changes, because the American people are suffering as a result of this shut -- the longer this shutdown goes.

BARTIROMO: What about the idea that, like David Cameron just said, drones and more technology and more border agents?

They're basically saying, the wall, in and of itself, is ineffective.

RATCLIFFE: Well, he's right about a layered approach. I mean, it's not just a wall everywhere. We do need to take advantage of technologies.

But they have -- they have made this a political issue, to say that a wall is immoral and that they won't support it. As you pointed out, Maria, we have proven that it works. The wall between San Diego and Tijuana is incredibly important with respect to enforcing our immigration laws in this country.

So, the bottom line is this. He keep -- Congressman Cicilline kept bringing up they were willing to spend $1.6 billion. As you pointed out, Maria, last week, 234 out of 237 Democrats in the House and the Senate voted to spend $867 billion on a farm bill. And, this week, $5 billion is too much to spend for the number one priority of the federal government, border security.

BARTIROMO: That is a really important point that you make.

And the farm bill was really debated throughout business and politicos, because there's welfare in that bill as well. It's not just helping the farmers.

But let me move on to another big issue on your plate. And that is, last week, you came face to face with Jim Comey. You have been investigating the DOJ and the FBI for more than a year now over their activity and behavior in the 2016 election.

I want to show your tweet that you put out after you spoke with Jim Comey. And you basically said: "Yes, this is the real transcript of my exchange with Jim Comey. No, I didn't make this up."

What are you trying to say here?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Maria, first of all, I have to probably confess to your viewers that, when it comes to Jim Comey, I have probably lost my objectivity, because I was one of the folks that was defending him two years ago.

But exchanges like this, this transcript, really demonstrate that Jim Comey's FBI, the disparity and the dichotomy with which he treated two different presidential candidates, folks that were associated with Hillary Clinton benefited from departures from FBI policies and procedures, and folks associated with Donald Trump had those departures work to their disadvantage.

The words on the paper make very clear that when, for instance, folks associated with Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI, they weren't prosecuted, they were given immunity, whereas we have seen this week what happened to General Flynn for lying to the FBI.

Lying to the FBI is a serious crime. You should be prosecuted. But folks on both sides of the aisle should be prosecuted the same way. We saw repeatedly that Jim Comey wasn't willing to do that.

BARTIROMO: Right.

And so what you wrote in your tweet is: "OK, so I guess as I try to summarize what I have heard here today, Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information more than 100 times. She made false statements about it. The FBI was aware that at least one of her aides also mishandled classified information, and one of the folks employed on behalf of Secretary Clinton intentionally destroyed evidence known to be subject to a congressional subpoena and preservation order, and lied to the FBI about it."

You go on then and say: "And then on July 5, 2016, you stood before the American people and said that neither you nor any reasonable prosecutor would bring any charges in this fact pattern. Is that accurate?"

And he answers you to say: "Yes, I believed it then, and I believe it now."

RATCLIFFE: Yes, Maria.

You have folks come on the show and try and spin things. The reason I put that out there is, that's the actual transcript. That's really what he said in response to my question.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: And the American people have a hard time reading that and believing it. And why they're so upset with the disparity in how folks are being treated.

BARTIROMO: But they're upset because we still -- we still haven't seen accountability.

I will ask you again. And I know that I have asked you a lot this year. Will there be accountability to those people who've actually tried to change the vote of the American people?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Maria, when I was a federal prosecutor, I had the ability to get subpoenas issued and bring people before a grand jury and try and seek indictments.

I can't do that as a member of Congress. What I can do is what's reflected in that tweet, create a transcript, create a record for the prosecutors to follow up there.

There is enough there for people at the Department of Justice to follow up here and hold folks accountable. We have done what we can. Yes, the Democrats are about to take control of the House, but they can't make these transcripts go away.

That's why Congressman Gowdy and myself and others have worked so hard to create a record that hopefully folks at the Department of Justice can use to provide that accountability. There's more than enough there for them to accomplish that.

BARTIROMO: Well, either that, or the president has to declassify.

We will -- we will see what the...

RATCLIFFE: And he should.

BARTIROMO: Yes. And we will see what the incoming A.G. does, the attorney general.

Thank you so much. Good to see you, Congressman. Thank you.

RATCLIFFE: Merry Christmas, Maria.

BARTIROMO: And to you. Merry Christmas, Congressman John Ratcliffe.

Coming up: Cardinal Timothy Dolan has a Christmas message that ties into the debate over immigration.

Plus, General Jack Keane is up next on the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

General Jack Keane is coming up.

But, first, I had the opportunity to sit down with Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, to discuss his Christmas message and the immigration debate.

But I began by asking him about the cloud hanging over the church in the form of abuse by priests. Here's some of that conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN, ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK: Thanks for asking, all right, because a lot of people do.

My ears bristle with people who let me know how they feel. And the sentiments that you just expressed, Maria, confusion, anger, frustration, it's widespread out there. So we bishops need to be attentive.

You know, Christmas comes in the darkest time of the year, right, in nature. The sun is at its lowest. And it's been -- it's been a season of darkness for the church, as all -- as well, as we try to confront this scandal of sexual abuse.

I will say this. And I do say, Maria, that adding to my frustration is that the good, the reform, the progress that the church has done -- and even our enemies -- and lord knows there's enough of them -- will say the Catholic Church has been vigorous in trying to reform this.

Sometimes, that's ignored. Do we still need some reform? You bet we do. Are there still gaps? Yes, I'm afraid there is. But, in general, we have got a very good process.

The problems come, Maria, when we don't obey that process. You know. You have been around for a while in the work of journalism. What, 17 years ago, in 2002, the bishops of the country passed what we call the Dallas Charter, the charter to protect children and youth.

And it's gotten widespread acclaim. And things have been very, very -- much better since then. We had a tough summer, Maria, with the McCarrick horror, with the Pennsylvania nausea, with the arguments, with the back and forth between Pope Francis and the former -- his former ambassador to the United States, Carlo Maria Vigano.

So, our people, understandably, are saying, what in the world is going on? We thought this was behind us.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Yes.

DOLAN: I would just like to say, folks, most of it is behind us. Stick with us. Call us to task. Encourage us and charge us to be as honest and forthcoming and transparent as possible. And, darn it, we will get through it.

Light conquers darkness. That's the message of Christmas. And it's going to happen in the church.

For me, Maria -- and this is our Catholic teaching. It's a beautiful -- it's a beautiful kind of prudential middle road. There's a legitimate moral call to defend our borders. So we have to have safe and secure borders.

However, there's -- there's also a noble posture of treating an immigrant and refugee with dignity and respect and having an inclination always to welcome and embrace him. We have Americans have done that well.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

DOLAN: We can -- you and I can look out the window and see the Statue of Liberty, all right?

BARTIROMO: Absolutely.

DOLAN: So, somewhere in between those two things is where the truth is. As usual, in medio stat virtus, in the middle, virtue stands, OK?

So, in the middle of those two...

BARTIROMO: In the middle, virtues stands. I love that.

DOLAN: Now, so we got to figure out how to do that.

I think all of this shows, why are we arguing all the time about the ill consequences? Why don't we fix our immigration policy?

BARTIROMO: I know.

DOLAN: Because, if we had a fair, safe, secure way to continue our magnificent tradition of welcoming people, we wouldn't have all these people here illegally.

They'd be able, in a fair way, to get in. We don't seem to fix the problem.

BARTIROMO: That's right.

DOLAN: We're always dealing with the consequences.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

DOLAN: You can't do it.

If I'm coughing all the time, I have got a throat lozenge, like right now, that may last about 10 minutes, but I better get to what is making me cough.

BARTIROMO: Right.

DOLAN: I think we need to do this with immigration.

BARTIROMO: You're right.

What's your message this Christmas? Cardinal Dolan, we have such vitriol in this country, the Republicans vs. the Democrats, the policy that people don't like. How do we bring people together?

DOLAN: All right, we do have it, don't we? We have a lot of alienation and a lot of division, Maria.

The basic message of Christmas is this. The most toxic virus affecting the human project is the division between God and humanity, between the divine and the human.

There's a cleavage there. There's a division. God doesn't want it. We have sort of, since the Garden of Eden, chosen it, OK?

Christmas gives us the antidote, the antibiotic to that separation between God and the human person, personally, tangibly, in that beautiful little baby of Bethlehem.

When we look at that baby, we have got, to borrow from our Jewish older brothers and sisters, Emmanuel, God is with us. In Jesus, we see through God and through man, God and man united. That's the antidote to the division.

If we don't bring God into the picture, if we don't bring the message that the whole world is celebrating the day after tomorrow, we're shot, because that's where division comes from.

You know what Mother Teresa used to say? She said Christmas is about joy, J-O-Y. Here's the prescription, folks. J stands for Jesus. Put him first. O, other people. Put them second. Y stands for yourself. Put yourself last.

We seem to have it backwards, right? And if we have got this kind of defensive, selfish, narcissistic approach to things, no wonder there is sin and division.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BARTIROMO: Beautiful message.

My thanks to Cardinal Dolan for spending time with us this Christmas.

Up next, General Jack Keane on the fallout from the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced his resignation after President Trump's decision to pull American troops out of Syria.

Let's bring in retired Four-Star General Jack Keane. He's a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army. He's the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and a FOX News senior strategic analyst.

General, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

JACK KEANE, ANALYST: Yes, glad to be here, Maria.

BARTIROMO: The president says he's pulling out of Syria, considering all the troops out of Afghanistan. Jim Mattis resigns in protest.

Your reaction to what has transpired?

KEANE: Yes, well, certainly, I don't agree with that decision.

But I -- there's also a process problem here. And I think, in a way, it may have actually contributed to the frustration, I think, that Secretary Mattis felt.

Normally, when we're considering a big issue like this, there's a meeting of the interagency. We call it the National Security Council. The deputies meet first, and then all the principals. And we vet all the options in terms of what the risks are operationally, tactically, actually also what political risks there are.

The intelligence agency gets to speak in terms of what will happen in the event of a decision like this, what's the -- what's the implication our allies, and then how do we communicate all that to them?

That wasn't done. And that's unfortunate. So, all of those principals didn't have a discussion to lay out the risk on this with the president oft United States present.

And I think he's finding some new information out now as a result of it.

BARTIROMO: So, is that what happened in terms of him getting so upset about it?

I mean, if you read the letter that Jim Mattis sent to the president -- or presented the president with -- here's a guy who many people have said is incredibly gracious, but he didn't appear very gracious in the letter. He was upset.

So, was it the approach, the way that the president announced this, that, basically, he was blindsided?

KEANE: Well, I think that I would call it a process foul a little bit. And I think it's a major lesson learned.

I have just tremendous confidence in the president's national security team. And I'm sure he will find a very capable replacement to Secretary Mattis.

But, unfortunately, I think an injustice was done to him, the president, in a sense that he didn't get this vetted properly, with all the key actors who understand what the ramifications of the decision are and what other options do we have available also.

One of the things I am encouraged by, as a result of the president's decision, is this, Maria. The Saudis have come forward now with a sense of urgency, driven by the decision to pull out, to provide reconstruction money that we promised the people in the vicinity of Raqqa, where we have been fighting against ISIS for a year.

We have -- and, as a result of that, no electricity, schools have been destroyed, bridges, et cetera, all the infrastructure gone.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

KEANE: Well, we could keep some of the force -- some of our forces there and the Syrian Democratic Forces to help stabilize and secure that area while the reconstruction effort goes on.

So, that...

BARTIROMO: Well, you're going to need -- you're going to need that kind of support. We're all going to need that kind of support, given the fact that you yourself said, if we pull out, that opens a window for ISIS to get empowered and reform in a strong way once again, just the way Obama pulled out of Iraq.

KEANE: Yes.

I mean, the thought is -- and some people say, well, OK, if ISIS reemerges and they retake territory again, it's not our problem, let the locals take care of that.

Well, the locals are taking care of it now. We're -- and many people don't understand what our role is, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

KEANE: We have 2,200 people there, Special Operations forces, mostly.

BARTIROMO: All right.

KEANE: But not as -- they are advising and they are -- they are coordinating artillery and airpower. They are not the primary fighters.

BARTIROMO: OK.

KEANE: The locals are the fighters.

BARTIROMO: General, it's good to have you on the program, as always.

And I know you said it was final that you don't want the job. We will be watching the developments.

Thank you so much, General Jack Keane.

KEANE: Good talking to you. Merry Christmas, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Merry Christmas to all. Thanks for joining us.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.