Former New Mexico governor: You can't address humanitarian crisis at the border without addressing security crisis
President Trump asks Congress for $4.5 billion for crisis at the border; former New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez weighs in.
This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 2, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Thank you, Shepard.
Welcome, everybody. I am Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."
And to hear Democrats tell it, Joe Biden is the man to beat for the Democratic presidential nomination. After all, he is rocketing in the polls, and his campaign is now swimming in the cash. So what could possibly go wrong?
What if we told you maybe this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. They can't even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China sea and the mountains in the east -- I mean, in the west. They can't figure out how they're going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system.
They're not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They're not a competition for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: Well, China might not be competition to Joe. But try telling businesses and countries the world over that China isn't only competition, but a very real threat to them.
In fact, it is probably the one thing on which Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders -- think about that -- can agree. Ignore China at your own peril. Don't believe them? Well, believe something else, history.
And perhaps this nifty chart sums it up best. You know we love charts. You see that blue line? That's China. You see the yellow line? Well, that's us.
Now, if Joe was talking about the China of 1980, well, he would be right. See that blue line back then? That is when China represented little more than 2 percent of the world's economic output, no competition, indeed, to the U.S., which at that time was 10 times bigger.
But I want you to watch that blue line going up and that yellow line going down over the many years since. Now who is the bigger player? Now who is the bigger threat?
Now, it might be news to Joe, but apparently not to the International Monetary Fund, which tracks these things, and unequivocally states China is the fastest growing economy on Earth, which is why everyone wants to sell stuff there and make stuff there and buy stuff from there and just do business there, which is why China runs trade surpluses with the world, including a nearly half-trillion-dollar one with just us, which is also why President Trump says it's got to stop.
They're not only eating our lunch, he says, they are stuffing it in our faces. So he's working on a trade deal and has been for a while now that maybe stuffs then back and gets China buying more stuff from us. The world is watching. But is Joe Biden?
You see, that's the worry. And suddenly for this man who wants to be the next president, it's also the big question. Is Joe Biden sloughing off the very country Donald Trump and many others insist is ripping the world off?
To Axios reporter Alayna Treene.
Alayna, he is even distinguishing himself from fellow Democrats.
ALAYNA TREENE, AXIOS: Exactly.
I think Biden honestly might be one of the only Democrats in the field who is taking an opposite stance to the president on this. The president's view on China, his hawkish view, really, has become the consensus among both parties, among national security leaders, and by the business community.
And so he really is -- I think, in a very divided Washington, this is an issue where they can come together on. And you mentioned, Neil, that it's an issue where Mitt Romney and Senator Bernie Sanders come together on. It's also an issue where even Senator Chuck Schumer and the president also agree on.
And so it really does leave the former vice president kind of out of the loop on that.
CAVUTO: I was just surprised, Alayna, in that, maybe it's owing to the fact he's been around a long time and he doesn't want people pointing fingers at him, well, you could have done something about this when you had some influence in the Senate and later on as vice president.
But it is what it is. And to say it isn't makes you question whether he would, if he was elected president, just ignore it.
TREENE: I think that's a lot of questions that people, especially this is going to be a line I think that the president and Republicans are going to seize on as a line of criticism and attack throughout the campaign.
And you're exactly right. I mean, China has been pouring resources, money, infrastructure, trade into every continent. And in many ways, they have been promising a lot of different governments across the world that they will fill the void that was kind of left open now by the president's America-first agenda.
And a lot of people, from our reporting, associated with the president are going to be seizing on this line from the former vice president in their attacks. We even saw Senator Bernie Sanders, who, of course, is running against the former vice president in 2020, also tweeting about this and kind of seizing on it as a point, where now you can see I think a lot of people will fall in that direction as well.
CAVUTO: All right, Alayna, thank you very much, Alayna Treene.
Now, this would have gotten lost in the sauce and probably did with all the other news on the attorney general and Mueller and all that other stuff, which we will follow.
But, sometimes, when things get lost in the sauce, that doesn't mean they should get lost. This is an important development.
If you don't think China is at least a financial threat, leave the military out of it, FOX Business Network's Ed Lawrence says you should probably go behind even the numbers we have shown you.
Hey, Ed.
EDWARD LAWRENCE, BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Neil, listen to this.
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow admits China -- or China now admits that the U.S. has a point that the Chinese force the transfer of technology and steal intellectual property. Intelligence officials in the U.S. say the Chinese digital attacks have increased in the recent months, directed at energy, transportation, financial and health sectors.
Experts sounding an alarm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT MCNEALY, FORMER CHAIRMAN & CEO, SUN MICROSYSTEMS: To have lunch or be lunch, yes, but you better pay attention to China. They don't play by the same fair and open that we do with the rest of the world around tariffs, around market access, around intellectual property.
And I think the administration -- and I don't know any CEO who isn't just absolutely cheering Trump on to try and figure out how to level that playing field, because this is not a Third World GDP anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAWRENCE: And look at this. China's market index, the Shanghai Composite, soaring over the past 20 years, outpacing the Dow in percent increase.
China minted the most amount of new billionaires in the world last year, two per week in 2018. Over a 17-year stretch, China's billionaire population exploded. China's Belt and Road Initiative, a massive undertaking to link China with Europe and Africa through pipelines, railroads and ports, finishing this could give China a competitive advantage exporting their products.
Now, you see the impact of the current trade deficit over 16 years there. The Belt and Road Initiative, when it finishes, China may take even more market share from our exporters' because of the ease of transportation there.
Militarily, China's defense budget grew at 7.5 percent in 2019. They pledged to have a modernized military in 16 years with the ability to fight wars across the globe by 2050. They're being very aggressive on all fronts, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Ed Lawrence, thank you very, very much.
Another little quick add-on to that, no deficit, no debt over that. They don't owe anyone anything. Not a soul.
So was this Joe Biden's Obama moment? Remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago, when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaeda. You said Russia.
And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War has been over for 20 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: I think it's safe to say that Russia is a threat. That was proven the case then. What about the comments that the former vice president had to make on China? Will they come back to bite him later?
The Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady, Democratic strategist Kristen Hawn, and FOX Business Network's bestselling author also, Charles Payne.
Charles, what do you think of what Biden was saying? China is no competition, relax.
CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: I mean, I was really shocked, to be quite frank with you.
And the only thing I could think is perhaps he just wants to be opposite of President Trump. Really, you think about this, it's an amazing threat. It's a dual threat. It's an economic threat. It's a military threat.
They have made it known that Made in China 2025 was a template, right? That was their knowledge, their sort of press release to the world. We want to dominate everything.
And, by the way, they're working at breakneck speed to do all of this. And so what you're seeing Edward talking about the Belt and Road Initiative. I mean, the Belt and Road Initiative, to be quite honest with you, also has military undertones.
Those are going to be ports where the naval -- Chinese naval access will be. And you talk about the jobs lost. This is why I thought Joe Biden really made a big mistake. According to the Economic Policy Institute, which is a nonpartisan, left-leaning, if you will, institute, 3.4 million American jobs lost from 2001 to 2017 because of China's unfair trade policies, mostly in the heartland, those swing states that he says he wants to win, and that he will win.
I just think it was a huge mistake coming out the gate for him.
CAVUTO: It might be early, Kristen Hawn, but as our Democratic strategist here, do you get a sense that he might have, in doing that and saying what he said, for whatever reason, just to be different from the field -- and that's a clearly different position -- he is also alienating union members who will often tell you, to a man or a woman, I fear losing my job to folks out there, that's a real threat to me?
KRISTEN HAWN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I don't think that Joe Biden -- Joe Biden's a union -- union man. He's not isolating union workers.
And I think it's less him trying to isolate himself from the other members or other folks that are running for the presidency on the Democratic side.
CAVUTO: By the way, he was making a major pitch to union members and audiences all this week.
HAWN: He was. And I think that a lot of it's taken out of context.
He's many times said that a rising China poses threats and challenges to the United States. I think what he was trying to get across was that the American people are strong and resilient and that we can overcome anything, and China -- not something that China isn't -- doesn't pose challenges to United States of America.
CAVUTO: All right. Well, maybe we heard different things here.
Mary O'Grady, I heard it's not real major competition. We don't have to worry about that. And I understand the full -- they have -- China, believe me, have plenty of problems, not the least of which is inflating some of the very figures we have to rely on to make comparisons.
Having said all of that, though, Mary, do you think that this is a stumble on his part not to see the severity of this?
MARY O'GRADY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I'm not a huge Joe Biden fan, but I think that this -- I agree that this is taken out of context.
And it's a sound bite, OK? What he said was, China's not competition for us. And entrepreneurship and freedom is what creates growth and innovation. And China has never been a good innovator. So I think it's true that Biden was basically saying, we can compete with China.
And I also think that this idea that, oh, China's GDP is growing, well, China's moving a billion people out of poverty. I mean, there's been a big economic boom in China that has changed the lives of all these poor people.
So I think that there's a point to be made about them stealing technology and forcing companies that invest there to give up technology. That's a perfectly fine point. But to say that somehow Chinese -- that the China engagement with the world and trade is a negative, I think, is really misguided.
And I'm not saying -- I don't want to give Joe Biden too much credit, because I don't know if he was thinking that deeply.
CAVUTO: Right.
O'GRADY: But, I mean, this is fundamental economics 101. You try to engage countries, because if they trade with you and they engage with you, they have something to lose when it comes to blowing up the world.
It's closed countries, closed places like Afghanistan that end up causing a lot of trouble.
CAVUTO: Fair enough.
But back to this message -- and just want to be clear we didn't take any bite out of context. We didn't take any sentiment out of context.
O'GRADY: No.
CAVUTO: No, I understand where you're coming on.
But, Charles, one of the things that we had to keep playing and replaying was this notion -- he has been a frequent critic of this president's trade policies, which, back to Mary's point, and, by extension, Kristen's point, might be a bad strategy, in other words, heightening the situation where it gets to be bad.
But it is clear that he would have a different approach with China. What do you think that approach would be?
PAYNE: I mean, it sounds like more of a hands-off approach, but it's hard to ignore what we have seen in the last few years, the manmade islands in the Pacific that have now been militarized, the debt diplomacy.
The president of Malaysia, a 90-year-old man, went to China and said, no thank you to $20 billion, because you know what? He knew it came with strings attached.
We talk about free trade, but there's a fair component of it that has not existed in our relationship with China. And now Americans are hip to it. Voters are hip to it. And if anybody wants to be president of this country and say that we're not going to push back against it, I think they're going to lose. I know they're making a mistake.
CAVUTO: All right. We will watch very, very closely.
We have got some developments in Venezuela we want to share with you right now. And they concern Nicolas Maduro and with whom he has been meeting, and who our military leaders have been meeting -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: It is a mess in Venezuela.
And the disputed Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, who we thought was leaving the country only a couple of days ago, is still very much in power and not budging today. We're told as well that he has been appearing with troops there. And that has a lot of folks wondering whether we should be having similar meetings with other troops around there.
Let's get the read from retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis.
Bob, we do know that the Maduro government is hanging onto that power. We do know that, by and large, the generals, who have been very loyal to him, remain very loyal to him, and that they're not budging.
What are you -- what are you hearing, seeing?
LT. COL. BOB MAGINNIS, RET., U.S. ARMY: Yes.
Well, with a very capable military that's well-fed, well-financed, and a Texas-size country away from us, with the help of Cubans and Chinese and Russians, Maduro's spine has stiffened, Neil.
I don't see that he's going to move without being pushed. Guaido, obviously, he called for his Operation Liberty. It kind of fizzled out. And now Maduro is taking revenge against some of his political opposition.
We will see if he goes after Guaido. I don't know that he will, just because of international pressure. But he's there, I think, for the long term at this point. And, militarily, our options are limited. I don't want us to go in there and to waste American lives and treasure unnecessarily.
CAVUTO: Yes. And it should be done with neighbors in the region, if it's done at all, or either on their own. And they're not. Why not?
MAGINNIS: Well, Brazil and Colombia obviously have rather capable militaries. They're protecting their border. They're watching the immigration.
If you have -- four million people have fled out of Venezuela, which is a problematic issue for them. However, they're not about to risk going in there and spending their own treasure unnecessarily.
I have to ask, what are our national interests involved here? Now, you can argue that Russia and China are giving us a black eye, the Monroe Doctrine is being ignored. There are a host of other issues at stake here.
But we need to sit back, as John Bolton, I'm sure, did yesterday when he met with the NSC and considered, what can we do short of military activities directly against Caracas and Maduro to turn the tide against him?
You can use your intelligence, as General Dunford said yesterday on the Hill. You can bolster maybe an insurgency that might start up in that country. The alternatives are not very good, because this is a sovereign country, in spite of the fact that we don't agree with Maduro, and we do support Guaido.
CAVUTO: I just wonder what happens if we have like another Budapest, Hungary, development in 1956, where the whole world watched as the Soviets were not allowing this uprising to continue.
No one came to their aid. And, of course, it was -- it was shot down -- a lot of them were literally shot down. And it seemed that the world would be aghast at something like that happening in Venezuela, but I can't see it as being totally out of the question.
So then what?
MAGINNIS: Well, we clearly have to coalesce around those that are in the region, Neil.
CAVUTO: Right. Right.
MAGINNIS: There are plenty of countries that have, like I say, good capability.
If they feel that their national interests are at stake, then we can certainly support them. We have plenty of assets that we can stand behind them. We do not have to go in there with the 82nd Airborne into Caracas and spend American blood, when there's plenty of others that have more vested interest in that area.
It's not about oil. They continue to pump...
CAVUTO: Right.
MAGINNIS: ... a million barrels of oil a day. That's what's keeping Maduro afloat, literally.
If that was pulled, you know, then that would be a different issue. And I'm sure that that has crossed a number of minds, just starve them out, basically. But, short of that, I don't see us going in there right now.
Perhaps an insurgency could start within the people. But he disarmed everybody in 2012.
CAVUTO: Yes.
MAGINNIS: And that really creates a rather desperate situation for those that are truly against him and have suffered tremendously. There's no question about that.
CAVUTO: Yes. They probably want to drive a wedge within the military, the lower-ranking and mid-soldier level that is not happy with the generals...
MAGINNIS: No.
CAVUTO: ... who are getting everything, and they're getting nothing.
We will see what happens. Colonel, thank you very, very much.
MAGINNIS: Thank you, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, to the border near El Paso, new video that shows migrants using a rope ladder to climb over a barrier. How often has this kind of stuff happening?
The Customs and Border Protection deputy commissioner, Robert Perez -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, there are still migrants storming through the border and finding clever ways to do so almost every day.
The president has already requested $4.5 billion in emergency funds to deal with all of that. The Senate Appropriate Committee member Republican Shelley Moore Capito says Democrats probably won't allow it.
There's a back and forth as to what's going to come with it or that request and where the money would go. Republicans have been saying it's not necessarily wall money, it's just security money, but, again, security for what and exactly how would it used?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner Robert Perez.
Commissioner, do you know what -- if you had your druthers on this dough, and you got it, what would you use it for?
ROBERT PEREZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: Well, thanks for having me, Neil. As you know, we have an absolutely unprecedented humanitarian and national security crisis on our border. And for quite some time, I myself here, with some of your colleagues up on Capitol Hill and many of my colleagues, including our acting secretary, has said that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
And what that essentially means is that we need a menu of sorts of different types of solutions, real solutions that are lasting. And that includes resourcing new wall, new infrastructure, continuing to deploy and build that out, alongside the real technologies, new technologies, both at our ports of entry and in between our ports of entry, and also deploying more personnel, particularly agents and offices to our front line.
But make no mistake about it, Neil. We also absolutely need our legal framework with respect to the immigration process to be brought into the 21st century.
We need the laws on the books to be modernized to allow us to streamline the way that we process folks through an immigration system, keep families together in an expeditious manner, and treat unaccompanied children, both of which are the largest parts of the populations we're seeing now on the border, and get them processed and expeditiously adjudicated by a judge, and then see that to through fruition in a modern immigration process.
CAVUTO: All right, now, I have heard one of the ideas being bandied about -- and, again, keep wall funding out of it, so the president can get Democratic support -- is that you would beef up detention centers and not be in a position where eventually you have to just let people go.
What do you think of that?
PEREZ: Well, look, Neil, again, there's -- there's a myriad of different types of solutions that we actually -- absolutely need.
Keeping families together in an expedited process, which, really, again, affects us on the front line.
CAVUTO: Sure.
PEREZ: As you know, last year -- or last month, rather, we saw over 100,000 migrants that we apprehended along the border, undocumented migrants, 65 percent of which were family units and/or unaccompanied children.
That's where, again, the fixes in the legal framework, keeping them together, through their immigration hearing becomes so essential to alleviate these pull factors.
Look, in the meantime, we're really looking into immediate solutions to deal with the crisis that is at hand. You may be aware we have announced today the opening of two facilities in Texas, one in Donna near the Rio Grande Valley, and another in El Paso, to deal with the fact that the system is saturated, that the infrastructure that we are holding these families in was originally built for single adults to be held for just a few hours.
And so now we have two new soft-sided temporary facilities to house just these families and children, 500 each a facility can hold, in order to deal with, again, these humanitarian issues and to make sure they get the medical care, the food, the care and feeding, be in a climate-controlled environment, so that we can process them faster, get them through the system.
But, again, it is a menu and a comprehensive list of solutions, as I mentioned before, that we actually -- absolutely need.
CAVUTO: Well, a lot of those are very good ideas, Commissioner.
I am -- I'm wondering whether Mexico's crackdown on illegals in its country is actually fostering more of them getting or trying to get to our country. They hop on a bus or whatever to find their way here because Mexico is cracking down.
How do you describe what's happening in these so-called caravans? They're always estimated at different sizes. I have no idea. But in a weird way, the Mexicans might be encouraging it. What do you think of that?
PEREZ: Well, I would say, Neil, that, look, we have had a very robust and active dialogue with our Mexican counterparts for months now. And we have been encouraged by some of the actions they have been taking.
We have literally daily conversations with my counterparts, with our counterparts, not just at the CBP agency level, but certainly at the departmental levels, to make sure that they're doing all they can to help stem these flows and enforce their own laws.
Look, it goes without question, and something else we have emphasized, Neil, it is the alien smuggling organizations that are exploiting these incredibly vulnerable populations and profiting off of the movement of these migrants through the entirety of Mexico and ultimately across our border.
And regarding the proposed solutions being put forth on the Capitol Hill, I do have to mention one other note. I'm encouraged, Neil, because one of the things that, again, I have asked for, a lot of my colleagues have been asking for -- asking for some time is for Congress to act.
We absolutely need their help to support us in finding, again, these solutions, these modernizations of our immigration laws in order to stem this crisis that continues on our border.
CAVUTO: It's not easy work, Commissioner. I give you credit. Thank you very much, sir.
PEREZ: Thank you for having me, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, if you didn't catch this action today, you know by now that the attorney general, Bill Barr, didn't testify before the House Judiciary Committee, then Democrats having a field day, quite literally saying he chickened out, eating chicken to prove the point.
But this is the same guy who had to deal with body blows for the better part of six hours talking to the Senate yesterday. I don't know, doesn't sound like a chicken to me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: And then there were none.
Steve Moore following Herman Cain and quitting consideration to be on the Federal Reserve Board. What does the president do now? Who does he propose now, and what exactly undid Moore?
After this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: The attorney general apparently is afraid of proper cross-examination.
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: The reason Bill Barr is not here today is because the Democrats decided they didn't want him here today.
REP. STEVE COHEN, D-TENN: Chicken Barr should have shown up today and answered questions.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: The so-called attorney general is abrasive, evasive and unpersuasive.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: This is more about destroying Trump than it is trying to oversee the executive branch.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: The attorney general of the United States of America wasn't telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That's a crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right, this chicken thing got to be a big theme for the Democrats on this committee when Barr refused to show up.
And, by the way, he refused to show up because it would be a lawyer or lawyers questioning him. And that's something he just found a little bizarre.
So they said he was chicken, that he was scared, when he absorbed body blows from upwards of six hours from largely Democrats who pretty much pilloried him.
Now, where you stand on this is politics, I understand, but where's this going? Because the first thing I thought of is, well, it's going to be a very long summer. We're going to go back and forth with lawsuits, subpoenas, hearings.
And 1973 comes to mind, the Watergate thing. We also had crazy oil markets that year. They're not comparable, save this. What people thought would be a short summer of hearings in '73 wasn't.
So what are we looking at?
Former federal prosecutor Doug Burns, Democratic strategist David Burstein. We have also got America Corp. Rising senior vice president Alexandra Wilkes.
Alexandra, he might have had perfectly valid reasons not to show up, given the fact that, out of the blue, they're insisting, we're going to have a prosecutor talk to you and a lawyer ask the questions.
That does have a setup feel to it, even when two-thirds of those committee members are lawyers themselves. (LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: But what's going on here?
ALEXANDRA WILKES, AMERICA RISING CORP.: Well, I think what's going on here, Neil, is that they want to turn William Barr into the Trump voodoo doll.
They can't get Trump in front of them themselves to answer questions and to sort of beat up over the nonexistent findings of the Mueller report, so they want to take it out on somebody. And that somebody happens to be William Barr.
I think that it's totally bizarre what they wanted to do with this extra hour of questioning. As you pointed out, most of the members are attorneys themselves. And the staff attorneys who are the -- they are the ones who write the questions for the congressmen.
So it's pretty strange that they wanted this format. And I think it's because these Democrats are a little scared.
CAVUTO: Well, we had something like that for Kavanaugh and his accuser for the Supreme Court.
WILKES: Well, I don't know. It's more of an optics issue that you had males.
CAVUTO: Understood.
But the precedent for this was Watergate, where they did that sort of thing.
DOUG BURNS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
I mean, look, the way I break it down is, I think it was more about protocol than it was about substance. I don't think Bill Barr -- honestly, and I'm not being sarcastic -- was concerned about being questioned by lawyers, given his extensive decades in law.
But I think that, when you question a Cabinet member, they want to have members of Congress do it, not staffers. I'm told by other experts that, in an investigative hearing, you might have staffers do some questioning, but not in this type of hearing.
So that's what I think the dust-up was. And then, lastly, real quick...
CAVUTO: Or maybe, after yesterday's experience, David, he just said the hell with it.
BURNS: No, but -- and, also, legally, there's no subpoena.
(CROSSTALK)
BURNS: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
DAVID BURSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think so, right?
BURNS: Go ahead. Sorry.
BURSTEIN: I mean, look, here's the thing.
I'm actually pretty conflicted about this, because, on the one hand, I do think it is in the Constitution the responsibility of members of Congress to investigate these things and have oversight. And this is part of oversight, no question about it.
And the members of the Cabinet, administrative officials, have to show up as part of the oversight. They can't stonewall on everything, as this administration is doing. On the other hand...
CAVUTO: Well, unless you throw a little thing like this into it, right?
(CROSSTALK)
BURSTEIN: On the other hand, though, it's pretty clear this is never going to go anywhere and that they can have -- they may get a little admission here or there.
They may get some documents. But, as you just said, this is going to be a very long summer, a lot of questions and a lot of hearings. Not clear what it's going to lead to in the end. And Democrats know that.
They got to know that Trump's not going to be impeached, Barr's not going to be forced to resign as a result of any of this. So it begs the question. Somewhere in between there is the right medium of oversight and also, frankly, Democrats focusing on their political goals for 2020.
CAVUTO: All right, but this started out about Russian collusion and whether they fixed the election, Alexandra. I think that part...
BURSTEIN: Which we haven't -- which we haven't done.
CAVUTO: Right. So, we haven't addressed that.
This is all about, you know, what did Barr know and when did he know it regarding Mueller?
WILKES: Sure.
CAVUTO: Bouncing off talking points on a report that's now out in the public's hands anyway, or at least 92 percent of it.
So, isn't this Kabuki theater?
WILKES: It completely is.
I mean, most of the report is out. He released the entire thing as quickly as he could, not just releasing summaries, but releasing the entire report very quickly for the American people to see. We have all had the chance to look at it. I have read parts of it.
And, to me, what's more compelling is not in part two of the obstruction part of the report, but in part one, where it details this very serious attack on our country from a foreign government.
And what I did not hear addressed in those hearings yesterday was what these congressmen are going to do to help prevent that.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Well, Republicans as well, by the way.
WILKES: They had the man to help.
CAVUTO: But, this is a charade.
BURNS: See, legally, real quick, I wanted to say that, you know, he wasn't under subpoena. So the point is, he's not required to show up, as dumb as that might sound.
Now, they can issue a subpoena and he will have to show up.
CAVUTO: Well, now they're saying he perjured himself by saying he had not heard from Mueller.
BURNS: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Well, the thing is, he's got...
CAVUTO: But that's getting kind of...
BURNS: That's getting completely in the weeds.
I mean, he got a little cute. And he said, look, you asked me whether staffers on Mueller's team asked me. I heard from Mueller.
But he's got a better point and ties it in, which is this idea that he inaccurately reported the report out has been cured, basically, because the whole report came out.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: What they're saying, though, with this is that...
BURNS: Three weeks went by.
CAVUTO: ... I think, he was doing the president's bidding, and so that will become the new debate.
But is it a moot point, when the thing is out? You can decide whether he was doing the president's bidding or not based on what you read.
BURSTEIN: I think we are living in an era of totally different standards.
And the Democrats are trying to say, there are some things that are important here. Truth is important. And if people are going to start lying, and we're going to start saying, well, no, that lie was not important and everybody lies, what are we doing here?
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: But are they lying about being worked up about lying?
BURSTEIN: They're -- I mean, we're all participating in it.
I mean...
CAVUTO: That's a lie!
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
BURSTEIN: But they're trying to do their -- the best they can.
And I don't think they're doing the best job of it. But they're trying to stand up on some level for a need for oversight. And I think that's really important and critical. And the Democrats are doing something, frankly, the Republicans did not do.
CAVUTO: Do you think they're hurting themselves by going overboard? The first time Nancy Pelosi has used the I-word, impeachment, and they're getting -- they're getting ahead of their skis, right?
(CROSSTALK)
BURSTEIN: There's no public demand for all this infighting about Barr.
The average person sitting at home cannot follow the back and forth over this. And so these are abstract legal principles here.
WILKES: It totally does not inure to their benefit to be focused on this right now.
This is not...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Then you should let them implode and pursue this to their full degree.
WILKES: Well, I think that that's what the president was doing when he said, release the whole report.
(CROSSTALK)
WILKES: And when he didn't invoke executive privilege.
CAVUTO: But you think he's keeping it dragging on by challenging their subpoenas than allowing his people to talk? If he has nothing to fear, which he claims he doesn't, you can talk to my dog if you want.
(CROSSTALK)
WILKES: The attorney general was totally within his rights to object to this hearing format.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Does he have a dog?
BURSTEIN: No, I don't think he does.
(CROSSTALK)
WILKES: It was strange. It's just the Democrats' attempt to continue this investigation when there's no there there.
CAVUTO: But I think it's dragging on. I think this begets hearings that beget hearings that beget people suing because you didn't come to our hearing, which is another hearing.
And if you don't come to it, we're going to be hearing about you not even honoring our hearing.
WILKES: I think the Democrats come out looking worse in that than any of the Republicans do.
BURSTEIN: And, frankly, there are a lot of the oversight issues like immigration, other things that Democrats would be much more served to investigate and use their oversight capital on, because we all have limited capital, where the public is much more sympathetic to issues about family separations and things like that, where they could get perhaps a little bit further with things like that than that.
CAVUTO: Yes.
All I know is, Republicans overdid it with the Clinton thing, right? Could they be risking...
(CROSSTALK)
BURNS: No, it's the same type of thing, exactly, in other words, making that mistake of -- but a lot of people are saying -- on both sides, they're saying, look, to redo that in reverse is not going to help anything.
I think -- look, again, I think people are getting a little tired of the whole Mueller situation, honestly.
CAVUTO: But we did a segment on it with a graphic, opening, and some music.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: All right, guys, thank you all very, very much.
WILKES: Thank you.
CAVUTO: In the meantime, there was the Steve Moore drama. On any other day, this would be the lead item, right? The president's second choice for the Federal Reserve quits, not so much on his views on Federal Reserve or economic policy and all that, but writings that came back to haunt him from many, many years ago.
Does it sound familiar? Get used to it. It keeps happening -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: But the fact is that this kind of sleaze campaign over the last three or four weeks was just really too tough for me and my family. And we just decided it was much better for Donald Trump to select someone who doesn't have a 30-year paper trail.
I mean, it's -- people were looking at things that I was writing 25 years ago and looking through my divorce records. And it just was -- it was too difficult for us.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CAVUTO: OK, that was Steve Moore, who took himself out of the running for the Federal Reserve.
A question I had raised with him was whether he had ever raised these issues that ultimately came up to give the White House a heads-up. I got the impression that was not the case and that the White House was caught off-guard by that. We will never know.
Anyway, you can get Steve with Tucker Carlson tonight at 8:00 p.m. on FOX News, no doubt addressing those issues and what blew up and when and how did it blow up, and how long do we wait for a successor?
Blake Burman at the White House on what happens now.
What do you think, Blake?
BLAKE BURMAN, CORRESPONDENT: All good questions, Neil.
This one moved pretty quickly earlier today, because at about 8:00 this morning, Steve Moore was sitting down for breakfast giving an interview in which he said he was absolutely going forward with the pending nomination to be on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Then about an hour after that over here at the White House, they said there was no change in status whatsoever with Steve Moore. That was this morning. Fast-forward a few hours after that, we get the tweet from President Trump in which he says that the nomination is no longer going to be going forward.
At issue for Moore, past writings and comments that he had made about women. And Senate Republicans started to express their reservations. Now, Moore says those comments were not meant to be -- or were meant, rather, to be humorous, but he admits that they were not.
And he also says he decided to withdraw because he claims he was the victim, as you heard him say there, of a sleaze campaign, and says the attacks were just too much for his family.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MOORE: This is kind of a victory lap for the left, because they took me down with a smear campaign.
And -- but it is interesting to me. I mean, to go back to what I just said, if they think my ideas were so out of the box and so wrong, why didn't they debate me on the economic ideas?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURMAN: Now, in a statement, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said the following, writing -- quote -- "The only thing less funny than some of Mr. Moore's tasteless, offensive, sexist jokes was the idea that President Trump would even consider him for a seat on the Federal Reserve."
So, Neil, when you -- when you stop for a moment, sit back and realize where the White House is in this moment, Steve Moore never even officially nominated. He was just being vetted. He withdrew. Herman Cain, never officially nominated, he was just being vetted. He withdrew as well.
There are still two open seats to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And when the White House moves forward here with the next potential nominations, you got to wonder how long they will take and how much they will dig into all of it -- Neil.
CAVUTO: It's open season going back many, many years. If you have a record, they're going to get into it.
Thank you, Blake, Blake Burman.
BURMAN: Yes.
CAVUTO: Meanwhile, the president looking for $4.5 billion for border security, but what does that mean?
The former New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez on some ideas -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, with us now is the former Republican New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez.
Governor, very good to have you on so many fast-moving developments.
SUSANA MARTINEZ, R-N.M., FORMER GOVERNOR: Thank you, Neil.
CAVUTO: I don't know if you wish you were back in power, given all the headaches, including now the heightened emergency at the border.
The president's requested more than $4 billion to deal with it. If you had druthers on how to spend that money and for what purpose, what would it be?
MARTINEZ: Well, if I could -- if we didn't have the issue on the border, certainly, to spend those money -- that money on infrastructure that is badly needed with -- throughout the country, throughout my state.
But, instead, we're facing a very serious crisis that can no longer be denied. And it is a security and humanitarian crisis that I know Congress, if they would just set aside their politics, set aside that they're Republicans or Democrats, and view this as something as serious as it is, and solve it, then the American people would again have faith in their government.
But, right now, there just isn't the confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
CAVUTO: Governor, I was talking to a couple of Democrats who were telling me, we'd be open to emergency funding, but it better not be for that wall. It better not be a sneaky way of getting more money for the wall that we limited him to.
What do you think of that?
MARTINEZ: You cannot address one issue, which is the humanitarian crisis, without dealing with the security crisis as well, because all you're going to do is continue to invite people from all over the world.
And I think that's what Americans need to understand, is illegal immigrants are coming from all over the world. And they're coming through the path of least resistance, which is the border between the United States and Mexico.
And so there is no doubt that we have to have that, barriers of a variety of kind, as well as technology that can take place, so that we know who's coming across, and they're able to be captured and determine whether or not they are true asylum seekers, or they're just coming here to work or live.
CAVUTO: Now, the old rule of thumb used to be that -- that the U.S. would detain you while you were going through this adjudication and the process, the legal process. The administration has been fighting hard to let Mexico deal with that, house them in Mexico in that interim.
But, obviously, this is being challenged in the courts. And you know how this goes, back and forth with multiple courts, multiple decisions. Where do you think that's going?
MARTINEZ: I think what Congress needs to understand is, there's no time to waste anymore.
There -- we cannot wait for courts to continue to make decisions and lawsuits to continue to be filed. It's time to act right now and start dealing with the security issue and the humanitarian issues.
We have to secure our borders. We don't -- we can no longer be expecting 1.2 billion people -- I'm sorry -- 1.2 million people to come across that border and go throughout the country, because they're not going to stay on the southern border. They're going to Oklahoma. They're going to New York, California, Kansas.
They're going all over the country, if they're given that ability to leave the processing center and not to be detained because they're overwhelmed.
CAVUTO: Governor, we will have to watch it, because the 1.5 billion misreference, it certainly seems like 1.5 billion, the way things have been going.
But thank you very, very much.
MARTINEZ: Absolutely. It's my pleasure, as always, Neil.
CAVUTO: Governor Martinez.
All right, we will know, again, how the courts are going to deal with that issue. We still don't know how we're going to see Congress deal with the extra funding issue. So many issues, so little time, so many trying to get into this country.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, in the middle of all this legal noise comes the backdrop that so far has been this president's friend, the jobs report for April.
They're expecting 180,000 to 181,000 more of them added to the economy, and, of course, keeping the unemployment rate at a near record low of 3.8 percent.
If that continues, that could be everything this president wants, regardless of all these other events on Capitol Hill he does not.
On FBN on "Coast to Coast" at noon.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox