This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," June 14, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Hillary Clinton holds her first big campaign rally. But can she change the subject from controversies over private e-mails and big money?


HILLARY CLINTON, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m not running for some Americans but for all Americans.


WALLACE: We'll get a live report and discuss Clinton's campaign with Karen Finney, a senior official at Hillary for America.

And then, House Democrats hand President Obama a major defeat on trade. What happens now?

REP. PAUL RYAN, R- WIS.: I’m hopeful that the Democrats understand the consequences and get together with the president and finish this as soon as possible.

WALLACE: We'll talk with Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, who backs the president on trade but opposes him on Obamacare, as the Supreme Court gets set for a big ruling on that law.

Paul Ryan only on “Fox News Sunday.”

Plus, the president sends more U.S. troops into the fight against ISIS. We'll ask our Sunday panel if it will make a difference.

All, right now, on “Fox News Sunday”.


WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington.

Hillary Clinton has been running for president for two months now, but yesterday, she held her first big campaign rally to lay out in broad strokes where she wants to take the country. In a few minutes, we'll talk with one of Clinton's top advisers, Karen Finney, and get reaction from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.

But, first, senior political correspondent Mike Emanuel on Clinton's big day -- Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Chris, two months after entering the 2016 race with a YouTube video, Hillary Clinton held her first major rally and more traditional launch.

The setting was New York City's Roosevelt Island with One World Trade Center behind her podium. The campaign says some 5,500 people turned out for the speech, but media estimates were well below that. In a 45-minute address, Clinton said she was running to be the champion the country needs now.


CLINTON: I think you know by now that I’ve been called many things by many people. Quitter is not one of them.



EMANUEL: Clinton spoke of the impact her mother had on her life and the 67-year-old noted the chance of being the first female commander-in-chief.


CLINTON: While I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I will be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States.



EMANUEL: The former secretary of state hardly mentioned foreign policy and she did not offer a position on the trade fight taking place in Washington.

Liberal group Progressive Change Campaign Committee called it a typical Democratic speech but lacking bold economic vision.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio's campaign released a video in response saying, "We cannot go back to leaders and ideas of the past."


SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA.: We must change the decisions we are making by changing the people who are making them.


EMANUEL: And former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee quipped, quote, "I’ve answered more questions in the last two hours than Hillary Clinton has in the last two months."

From New York, Clinton traveled to Iowa, the start of a swing through early voting states -- Chris.

WALLACE: Mike, thanks.

Joining us now, Karen Finney, a senior official at the Clinton campaign.

Karen, Secretary Clinton says that she is a fighter. So why has she been missing in action on trade, refusing to say whether or not she supports giving President Obama fast track authority to negotiate a deal.

KAREN FINNEY, CLINTON SENIOR SPOKESPERSON: Well, I think she's focused on specifics, right? So, her position has been -- and this is about this trade deal and any trade deal in terms of the underlying deal -- and that is any deal has to meet two tests. Number one, she's talked about last week. She’s talked about it a number of times over the last couple months, that it must protect workers and that it must bring prosperity to American workers. And then, the second test is, obviously, our national security interests.

And what she has said that is that any trade deal has to meet those two tests. And I think what we've seen over the last few weeks is that more of a sort of procedural process going back and forth between the House and Senate and we haven't actually seen final language.

I think the secretary believed the president deserved, ought to have the right to go to Congress and make his case and try to, you know, earn the votes for -- after he made that case. Unfortunately, on Friday, I think what we saw is that didn't quite happen. So, now, we'll see where this process goes --


FINNEY: -- from here.

But again, where she stayed focused is, what will the language of the -- what is the final deal? What -- let's talk about what would be -- what's in the final deal?

WALLACE: But, Karen --

FINNEY: Let's judge it on that underlying deal.

WALLACE: Karen, we're not talking about the trade deal here. We're talking about giving President Obama the same authority that President Clinton had on NAFTA so that when he finally does negotiate a deal, he can give it to Congress and they can either vote it up-or-down but they can't amend it.

This is what one of the other Democratic candidates, Bernie Sanders, had to say about that this week.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, D-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think our trade policies have been disastrous. Secretary Clinton, we need -- if she’s against this, we need her to speak out right now, right now.


WALLACE: The fact is, Karen, that there is a vote coming up this week, on part of the fast track trade authority -- whether or not the president is going to be able to negotiate a deal and then give it to Congress so they can vote it up or down but without amendment. As I say, it’s the same authority that Bill Clinton had.

Does Hillary Clinton think that House Democrats this week in the next few days should vote with the president or against him?

FINNEY: Well, I haven't spoken to her about the deal obviously since what's happened Friday and what's going to happen next week. But, again, you know, this is someone who has voted for trade agreements when she thought they were good for the country, and against trade agreements when she thought they were bad for the country.

And I would just say, Chris -- I mean, there has been maneuvering back and forth about the pieces of the agreement. So, again, she’s looking --

WALLACE: I’m not talking about the agreement. I’m talking --

FINNEY: I under --

WALLACE: Forgive me. I’m talking about giving President Obama the same fast track authority that Bill Clinton had on NAFTA. Why would she possibly be against that?

FINNEY: Well, we're talking about it in the context of this agreement, right?


FINNEY: We are talking about it in the context of an underlying agreement.

WALLACE: We're talking about in the context of how to negotiate a deal and give it to Congress. Why can't she say whether or not she's for or against it?

FINNEY: But I think you may hear -- again, we're going to talk about a lot of issues. I think you may hear her talk about it sooner rather than later. I’m going to let her be the person to speak about that.

WALLACE: But there's a vote this week in Congress, doesn't she have to weigh in pretty quickly? Because if there's no fast track trade authority, the president can't make the deal.

FINNEY: Well, we’ll see, won’t we? We'll see if they decides that she wants to go ahead and, you know, tell us what she wants to say about it.

WALLACE: But one of -- as one of her senior advisers, you can't say whether or not she's going to weigh in on fast track trade authority?

FINNEY: As one of her senior advisers, I think it's my job to let her be the person making the news in her campaign or let her be the person saying where she is on an issue and I’m telling you sort of the broader perspective that she has sort of -- and again, I do think it's important. I mean, you are talking about sort of fast track, but again, the way this has -- the political element of this played out over the last several months, you know, we had had a lot of --  

WALLACE: I’m talking about one thing.

FINNEY: I understand that, I understand that.

WALLACE: OK, let me --

FINNEY: I’m going to let my candidate speak to that.

WALLACE: Fair enough.

All right. In her speech yesterday, Clinton laid out a broad agenda for how she thinks that the federal government can help the middle class. And I want to put up some elements. This is just part of it -- big infrastructure program, universal preschool and child care, clean energy, debt-free college.

Question, how would she pay for all of that?

FINNEY: Well, that's part of what she's going to be talking about over the coming weeks. I mean, what we have said all along was that, you know, in the ramp up period of this campaign when she first launched, she wanted to go out and talk with every-day Americans and talk -- tell them -- talk with them about her ideas and hear what they had to say and what their ideas were, what their concerns were.

And then we had a launch speech, where I actually thought it was a bold progressive agenda, quite frankly, and I think she made her case. She talked about her values. She talked about the influences in her life.

And then going forward, what we've talked about is that over the course of the next several weeks, she will lay out sort of her -- put some -- sort of meat on the bones, if you want to say, specific policies and sort of how she would accomplish those things.

And just the list that you, you know, just put up, I mean, she talked about those things also, Chris, in the context of -- you know, these are critical investments that we have to make in this country to make sure that everyone is participating in our economy. I think it's one of the most important things that she talked about. So --

WALLACE: Karen, I understand that. I wasn't questioning those items. I mean, people can.

FINNEY: Sure, sure.

WALLACE: I was just simply asking, how is she going to pay for it because we're talking about billions of dollars?

Let me ask you about another thing that she talked about a great deal in the speech and that is income inequality, as you say, part of the progressive or liberal agenda.


WALLACE: She talked about the fact that the 25 top hedge fund managers make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country combined. What about the fact that until recently, she was making $250,000 for a one-hour speech where the average American makes $45,000 for working for a year?

FINNEY: Well, I think -- I would also remind you that she talked about her mother and her mother's very humble beginnings. Certainly, very I think tragic in the way that she was abandoned and sort of the impact that that had on her.

And I -- I raise that, Chris, for a very specific reason. You know, I think part of running for president, people want to know who you are, what influenced you, what motivates you, not just where you stand on issues but what is in your heart and what were things in your life that led you to believe the things you believe in, and fight for --

WALLACE: Karen, I --

FINNEY: Hold on, Chris.

And all I mean, is today is that I think that it's important -- yes, she talked about it. I hear what you're saying in terms of, you know, how much she made for speeches but what's important is that this is a person who has always fought for people who need to have a champion. Why? Because very early in her life she was very strongly influenced by the idea that there are people who don't have that. I don't see any --

WALLACE: Karen, we only have limited time and I don't mean to interrupt. But I’ve got to move on.

FINNEY: Sure. But I would say there's nothing -- I mean, you can -- you know, given -- I mean, she's making money and believing in the importance of --

WALLACE: I know, maybe hedge fund managers believe in it, too. So, I just wonder why she's saying that it's somehow wrong for the hedge fund managers to make so much, but it’s OK for her to make $250,000 an hour.

FINNEY: Well, because, at the end of the day --


WALLACE: If I may, I got -- Karen, I got to move on, if I may?

FINNEY: It’s about what to do with that money, it’s about --


WALLACE: Say it again?

FINNEY: But it's about CEOs making the money and then not sharing those profits with their workers. That's part of what she talked about.

WALLACE: Well, did she -- is she sharing all the money with -- I mean, are you making $250,000 an hour? I guess -- I bet not.


FINNEY: Well --

WALLACE: OK, let me ask you about this. Clinton has taken a hit in the polls recently. Forty-seven percent now think she cares about people like you while 52 percent do not. And 42 percent think she's honest and trustworthy while 57 percent do not.

How do you explain that?

FINNEY: Well, I guess what I would just remind you in bigger picture, I mean, Hillary is leading her Democratic opponents and all her Republicans. So, I think, overall, I mean, Mrs. Clinton is still the person who is the top choice.

Look, I think at the end of the day, what this -- we have just gotten started in this campaign. And again, she started to lay out her case yesterday. You're going to see her keep doing it. We believe at the end of the day this is about a choice and she talked about that fundamental choice.

And the poll numbers that you put up, we think what Americans at the end of the day want to know is, if this person going to go out and be a fighter for me? Does this person understand my concerns, my issues, and will this person fight for me?

WALLACE: Well, when you talk about --

FINNEY: But if you know Hillary Clinton, you know this is a woman who has never shied away from a fight.


WALLACE: People wanting to know what she stands for, the fact is since she announced two months ago, Hillary Clinton has not held a single news conference nor sat down for a single interview. Is that her idea of being transparent?

FINNEY: She has spent hours talking with voters on very sensitive issues. She has talked to members of the media.

WALLACE: Not the question I asked you.

FINNEY: Hold on, Chris. She has talked to the press.

WALLACE: If I may, I don't want to talk over you but I asked a specific question.


WALLACE: She has not given a single news conference or had a single sit-down interview. One, is that her idea of being transparent? And two, when is she going to do either of those things?

FINNEY: Why don't I tell you this, Chris? I think you're going to see her doing that later today, and you'll see her doing that in the tour of the early states that she's going to be doing. How about that?

WALLACE: She's going to sit down for a news conference?

FINNEY: She'll sit down for interviews, yes.

WALLACE: For interviews?

FINNEY: And she -- and I think, and I would say, I mean, when you say news conference, I mean, she has, you know, gone over to reporters who were traveling with them and talked to them and answered their questions. And again, I mean, you know, Chris, to this issue I think it's important -- I think the questions that voters want to ask is equally as important. And I think it's important when you are running for president and we're focused on --


WALLACE: But reporters can ask questions for millions of people opposed to four or five handpicked people sitting around the table who, you know, can only ask questions. I’m not saying she shouldn't talk to them.

FINNEY: Yes. Well --

WALLACE: But all the other candidates have met with reporters and sat down for interviews, have held news conferences. She's the only one who hasn't. I --

FINNEY: Well, they’ve got to do their campaign the way they're going to do their campaign and we're going to do our campaign the way we believe we’ve got to to win this -- win this in these four early states, to make sure that were focused --


FINNEY: -- on organizing and telling Hillary's story and winning the four early states and hopefully winning the primary and then winning the election.

WALLACE: Karen, thank you.


WALLACE: Thanks for coming in today.

FINNEY: Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: Thanks for answering our questions. We look forward to being able to ask Hillary Clinton some questions as well. We'll see you on the campaign trail.

FINNEY: OK. Sounds good.

WALLACE: Up next, Congressman Paul Ryan joins us to talk about Hillary Clinton, whether the president's big defeat on trade can be turned around, and what happens if the Supreme Court rules a major part of Obamacare is illegal.


WALLACE: The White House is scrambling this weekend to try to turn around a major defeat on trade engineered by members of his own party in Congress. What makes this fascinating is one of the president's key allies is Republican Congressman Paul Ryan who ran against him in 2012. Congressman Ryan is now chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

And, Congressman, welcome back to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WIS., CHAIRMAN, WAYS & MEANS CMTE: Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: Before we got to trade, I want to ask you a little bit about Hillary Clinton. In her rally yesterday, she reached out to the traditional elements of the Democratic Party -- women, young people, Hispanics on the immigration issues, gays. What did you think? And let me also say that she also hammered the Republican Party as the party of the rich.

What did you think of her speech?

RYAN: Rich with irony, same old same old. identity politics, dividing people into subgroups, hardly very aspirational. And I think what she basically did was the same old Democrat progressive speech, which is promise a lot of new big government, have people become more dependent upon big government and then figure out how to pay for it later, mixed in with a few straw men arguments.

And so, nothing was surprising about this speech. It's not new. I think that's what we're going to see as this campaign unfolds.

WALLACE: What do you make of the fact Clinton so far and we saw it with Karen Finney just now, refuses to say not only where she stands on the underlying trade deal but even on the question of whether or not the president should get fast track authority?

PAUL: That was one of the most painful interviews I think I have watched in a long time. I just -- I can't believe that -- pick a position. I mean, I -- that's what leaders do.

And we're not talking about passing a trade agreement right now. TPP is still being negotiated. It doesn't exist yet as an agreement. We're talking about whether we can even consider a trade agreement, whether Congress can set up a procedure to consider trade agreements so that we can have more American leadership in the economy for more American trade so we can create more jobs for Americans that pay more.

This is what this is about. It's about global leadership. And, surely, a person who was secretary of state understands something about American leadership.

And to refuse to even take a position is just sort of mystifying to me.

WALLACE: After House Democrats blocked the president on part of the fast track trade authority deal in the House on Friday, you said it's not over yet. But the vote on this issue, the TIA -- it gets complicated here.

RYAN: Right.

WALLACE: But an element of the fast track trade authority, the vote 302-126. This wasn’t close.

So, how likely is it -- how realistic that you're going to be able to get dozens of Democrats especially, but also some Republicans, dozens, to switch their votes in a couple of days?

RYAN: So, let me shed a little bit of light on this. Number one, the heavy lifting is over. Trade promotion authority, which is the more difficult part, the heavy lift, it’s done. I’m proud of House Republicans and pro-trade Democrats who delivered. We delivered big time.

So, the tough part is over. The heavy lifting is over, which is necessary.

The Democrats abandoned their president, the leader of their party in droves, on a bill and program that they demanded as part of this, that they previously voted for unanimously. That they asked as a part of this process.

So, to me, it was stunning that they would do this to the leader of their party, the president.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right. But if I may --


WALLACE: So, answer my question.

RYAN: To answer your question --

WALLACE: How likely is it you’re going to turn that around?

RYAN: The president has a lot of work to do with his own party to turn this around and to salvage this.

I’m optimistic. I think this can be salvaged, because people are going to realize just how big the consequences are for American leadership, for whether or not America is going to lead in the global economy and write rules, whether we’re going to expand markets for more jobs or retreat. Is fear impulsive (ph) going to grip this country so we can't do anything big anymore or are we going to overcome these things?

And will the Democrats -- I mean, it's irony. It’s ironic. They are the ones who are making him a very lame duck president, his own party. So, he’s going to have -- he has work to do with his party. And I hope that he can get that work done and we can fix this.

WALLACE: You talk about the stakes here. If the Pacific trade deal goes down because he doesn't get fast track authority, how damaging to the country, to its economic interest, to its strategic interest, and how do you answer the argument by some Democrats, certainly by big labor, that these trade deals are good for big corporations but they're bad for American workers who either lose their jobs or see their salaries lowered.

RYAN: It's the opposite. Big corporations can set up a factory in another country to make something there and sell it there. By getting trade agreements, you’re removing those trade barriers so that you can make things in America. So, small businesses can be part of trade, they're the ones who benefit the most, and trade creates more jobs.

One in five jobs in America tied to trade. They pay more. So, more American trade means more small businesses, more jobs.

But the consequences, that's your first question. If we say to the world we're retreating and we're not going to do these trade agreements, then we're going to let other countries like China write the rules of the global economy. There have been 100 trade agreements put in place since 2007 when TPA last lapsed. America has been part of zero of those.

What this means is, the rest of the world is going around there and getting better deals between their countries and keeping barriers up for America so that American trade cannot occur, so that we cannot send our goods and services to other countries because other trade agreements have knocked us out. That's the deal. That's what's going on here.

So, to retreat from doing that, to say that America is not going to engage in the world, is not going to knock down barriers, or get other countries to play by our rules, that would be a massive mistake and failure of American leadership.

Republicans delivered, though. I’m happy to say, Republicans have delivered.

The question is, are the Democrats going to do this to their president?

WALLACE: I want to switch to ObamaCare, because the Supreme Court is going to decide in the next couple weeks before the end of June whether or not people in the 34 states that have federal exchanges, not state exchanges, can continue to get their subsidies under ObamaCare.

You asked HHS Secretary Burwell this week if the vote goes against ObamaCare, whether the administration has a plan B. Here’s what she said.


SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, HHS SECRETARY: If the court said that we do not have the authority to give subsidies, the critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors.


WALLACE: Question: if the court does rule against ObamaCare, against these subsidies, says that they're illegal to the federal exchanges -- will Republicans come up with a way, Republicans in Congress, to make sure that those 6 million to 7 million people who depend on these subsidies in those 34 states are not left high and dry?

RYAN: Yes, we will have an answer. We will have a solution. We don't want people to fall victim because of this bad law.

We want to give people freedom from ObamaCare. We want to give people a bridge from Obamaare.

So, not only do we want to make sure that families don't suffer because of the failures of this law, we also want to give states the freedom to go their own direction and make it better. This law is failing. It's collapsing. Even if the court ruled for ObamacCare, you still have a disaster on our hands -- double digit premium increases, people are not getting what they want.

So, we want to give people freedom, the ability to buy what they want to buy, which is what Obama said you could do, and give states more control.

WALLACE: But I want to -- you're saying that you guarantee the Republicans will come --

RYAN: We will have a solution, yes.

WALLACE: That will make sure that these 6 million to 7 million will be able to keep their subsidies?

RYAN: Well, we will have a solution that addresses this law, that gives people a bridge from Obamacare and that addresses people who are getting caught in the crossfire, that are getting caught in this ruling.

WALLACE: Well, that’s what I want to ask you about.

RYAN: We will have a solution that addresses people who are being caught in this. And the solution, I won't go into all details because, quite frankly, Chris, we want to see the nature of the ruling. There are --

WALLACE: Now, I understand that. But here's the question.

RYAN: -- different details here.

WALLACE: But here’s a question, Congressman.

RYAN: The answer is yes, we'll have a solution --


RYAN: -- for people who are caught up in this law so that they're not left in the lurch.

WALLACE: But here’s the question: will you demand an end to the mandates, employer mandates, individual mandates, which Secretary Burwell said would in effect be repealing ObamaCare and that the president would veto?

RYAN: Well, I’m not going to get to all of that right now, because we want to see what the ruling is. But we want to give people freedom from ObamaCare. We want to let people actually buy what they want to buy so that we can lower healthcare prices.

WALLACE: But, what she’s saying is your solution is going to be something an offer that the president can't accept.

RYAN: Here’s what they’re saying, is they're going to hold up one piece page of paper and he’s going to say, it's my way or the highway. Just give me my law, you know, ram it down throats of the Americans again.

We're not going to do that. I think everybody knows we're not going to do that.

That's what I was asking the secretary which is, are you going to be intransigent and stubborn and say it's only my way or the highway, or are you going to work with Congress to fix this absolutely failed law and give us the ability to get people out of this so that we can have more freedom for individuals, more freedom for states? And we'll find out.

WALLACE: Well, I want to pick up on that because you said a couple times that this is a failed law. In your hearing this week, you said that ObamaCare is busted, that it's a lemon. There clearly are problems. You pointed out one of them, which is that insurance companies are coming up asking for 20 percent, 30 percent premium increases.

But the White House points to some successes. I want to put these on the screen.

Under ObamaCare, 16 million Americans have gained health coverage. Healthcare costs have risen at their slowest level in 50 years and up to 129 million Americans with pre-existing conditions are no longer in risk of losing coverage.

And meanwhile, for all of the complaints, Congressman, we're five years into ObamaCare, Republicans have still not come up with a coherent plan that will ensure that all of those millions of uninsured people get coverage.

RYAN: It's pretty amazing how short memories are around these days. When ObamaCare was being debated, we offered lots of different plans. We offered comprehensive alternative solutions to ObamaCare. Tom Coburn and I had a bill, for example, that would have dealt with this.

Here’s a deal -- we can have a system in America where everybody can get affordable coverage, including people with pre-existing conditions, without this costly government takeover, without raiding Medicare, without telling people you have to buy what the government says you have to buy on a government marketplace.

WALLACE: But if I may, if -- I want to be an equal opportunity interrupter today.

RYAN: No, it’s all good.

WALLACE: Do you have a plan that would make sure that, for instance here, 16 million Americans who didn't have health insurance will get health insurance?

PAUL: So, yes, we will. We want to see what the ruling is specifically so that we can customize our response to the actual ruling and that plan will involve making sure that people have assistance as we transition and give people freedom from ObamaCare. The other answer is, can we replace this law completely in the next presidency, in the next Congress? That is our goal and the answer is, yes, we can.

WALLACE: Finally, we got about a minute left -- as vice presidential running mate with Mitt Romney in 2012, I think it was fair to say, a lot of people thought you were going to run for president. You decided not to. You stayed in the House. You’re chairman of the House Ways and Means. You're involved in a lot of big issues.

But as you watch all of these dozen or more candidates running around the country, do you ever have any second thoughts?

PAUL: I don't. I’m not the kind of person that does that. I was playing basketball with my kids over this past weekend at home in Janesville and then I flipped on the TV and I saw people crisscrossing the country. I’m in a position where I can make a huge difference for the people I represent, for the country I love and still be home on weekends with my family. And that makes me very content.

WALLACE: Do you actually think to yourself, I’m glad I’m not doing that?

PAUL: I just, yes -- sometimes, yes.


WALLACE: That was an honest answer. It’s OK to say that.

Congressman Ryan, thank you. Thanks for coming in today.

And we'll stay on top of this trade story. We think it’s important.

RYAN: It is. It's very important.

WALLACE: Up next, our Sunday group joins the conversation about 2016 -- Hillary Clinton's big rally and Jeb Bush's big announcement.

And what would you like to ask the panel about Clinton and Bush? Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.



CLINTON: Prosperity can't be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers. Democracy can't be just for billionaires and corporations. Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain, too.


WALLACE: Hillary Clinton laying out the choice for voters in familiar terms at the first big campaign rally of her second run for the White House. And it's time now for our Sunday group. Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume. Susan Page, Washington bureau chief of "USA Today." Syndicated columnist George Will, and Charles Lane from the "Washington Post."

So, Brit, open-ended question, what struck you about Clinton's speech?

BRIT HUME, SR. POLITICAL ANALYST, FOX NEWS: What I would say about it is we as political journalists should allow for a certain amount of exaggeration and hyperbole in the interest of a free-willing debate. But even allowing for that, that little passage you played just as an example is so full of clap trap that it's quite striking.

I mean, here is -- first of all, consider who she is and what she's done. She worried in her speech about get-rich-quick schemes opposed to long-term growth. Well, talk about getting rich quick. I mean, she and her husband since he left the presidency have gotten staggeringly rich over a relatively short period of time by collecting, as you pointed out in your interview with Karen Finney, these breathtaking fees for speeches, and she has led a life that in no way resembles the experience of the average American. So it's just for her to deliver this message is so striking, because she's a very odd messenger to be putting it out there.

WALLACE: We asked you for questions for the panel, and we got this on Twitter from Dan Nassimbene. He writes, "why are you calling this Clinton's rollout? She declared weeks ago. Just another speech she won't take questions after." Susan, how do you answer Dan on a couple of levels? First of all, how do you explain the strategy of announcing two months ago and now doing her first big rally now, and also we were talking about this with Karen Finney, how long can she go without doing serious interviews and serious, in-depth news conferences, as opposed to this rope line thing where you answer for five seconds and walk away?

SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY: I think Dan makes a good point. It's really not fair to call this a launch. She announced her campaign formally weeks ago, and in fact, we've known she's been running for months and months. So -- but this is kind of phase two. I think they were concerned about having a big regal rally to start things, because one of her problems is that she seems kind of aloof and powerful and disconnected from people. And so they wanted to start with these staged small forums in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And for your question to how long she can do this without answering questions, I don't think very long. I think that there's increasing pressure on her to answer questions. I mean, I'm not surprised she didn't talk about her big speech fees in her rally speech. But she's going to get that question. She's going to get it in the first interview she does, and Karen Finney told you she would start doing interviews. Let's see that start, and she'll have to answer questions.


WALLACE: -- question before we move on, trade. Are you surprised that she has refused to give -- not just on the trade deal, but even on giving a president -- and if she's president I assume she would like it -- fast-track trade authority?

PAGE: And of course, people need to understand that you weren't asking Karen about whether she would support the trade deal.


PAGE: You were asking if she would support -- Hillary Clinton would support -- giving Barack Obama the authority that other presidents have had to present the treaty for an up-or-down vote. And that again is a question that she needs to answer. And she's getting hammered by people like Bernie Sanders for refusing to answer it.

WALLACE: Then there's Jeb Bush, who is finally announcing his candidacy after about six months of raising money. He just finished a European trip, in which he showed that he's comfortable on the world stage. Here he is.


JEB BUSH, FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: Always reacting, and giving the sense that we're reacting in a tepid fashion only enables the bad behavior of Putin. So I think there's lots to do. And we're beginning to realize that the reset button didn't turn out so hot.


WALLACE: But we got this question on Twitter from Johnny. "I would ask why Jeb is running as a Republican. I thought he was a Democrat." George, isn't that Bush's big challenge, to show conservatives that he's actually one of them?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It is. I should say again to begin with that my wife works for Scott Walker, which may give what I'm about to say some added weight.

To Johnny, I say, the late Senator Gene McCarthy once said, anything said three times in Washington becomes a fact, and it's been said many more than three times that Jeb Bush is a liberal or a moderate, and that's just not factual. His record in Florida as governor for eight years, from school choice to cutting taxes to right to life to shrinking government was measuredly more conservative than that of Ronald Reagan in California for eight years. Who am I to say that my conservative credentials are in pretty good order? Cast my first presidential vote for Barry Goldwater. First job in journalism with Bill Buckley. That's where I come from.

Now, his problem is two-fold. Immigration. He happens to be where a majority of Republicans are, which is a path to not just citizenship, actually. He hasn't gone there that far. That's where a majority of Republicans are. His is a pathway to legal status.

WALLACE: Legalization, yes.

WILL: On common core, I think he's wildly wrong. But who isn't?


WILL: I mean, are we looking for a candidate for whom there's no possible flaws? My answer to Johnny is that's no Democrat. That's a Reagan Republican.

WALLACE: Chuck, let me ask you to sort of put these two together. After watching Clinton's speech and how she's going to try to run, is Jeb Bush the smart choice for Republicans basically to beat her at her own game? Established, long record, gravitas, he can play on her field, or is it smarter for Republicans to try to change the game and come with somebody who is a fresh face, no tie to Washington at all, and try to make that appeal?

CHARLES LANE, WASHINGTON POST: Well, there's also the issue of dynasty, right, that they are both from previous presidential families, and in a funny way, Hillary is the only candidate Jeb could run against where that wouldn't be a negative for him, because they would cancel each other out. I think they both --

WALLACE: You can also say that for her, that he's the only candidate she could run against.

LANE: Exactly. And I think what they're both into right now is the same problem, which is relatively for their parties, centrist figures, trying to contend with the ideological bases of their respective parties, and trying to appease them enough to get the nomination.

Once it would get to a general election, however, I think Jeb would potentially be the stronger Republican opponent for Hillary, because he does sort of occupy a little bit more of the political center in a general race. But right now you sort of see them both struggling with the same exact problem, which is, you know, we have these wings of the party that control the nominating process, and they have got to deal with that.

WALLACE: So because the nomination comes first, Brit, between his name and this concern about his conservatism, as he announces tomorrow, how big a challenge for Jeb Bush to win the nomination?

HUME: It's a challenge, especially in some early states. Everybody running for the nomination of the Republican Party has to try to make peace with the right wing of that party, and everybody running as a Democrats has to make peace with the left. That's the way it's been for as long as I can remember, basically. But if you look at the record, Republicans only rarely nominate the most conservative candidate in their primary season race. Barry Goldwater was one example where they did that, and Ronald Reagan was the other, and all of the other candidates who have been nominated have not been the most conservative candidate in the race.

So even within the Republican Party, it would be helpful for him to make peace with the right, but it's not indispensable for him to win them all over. In fact, I don't think he can.

WALLACE: And do you think it's smart for him to just say right out front, I'm for common core, I'm for immigration reform, and I'm not going to bend on that?

HUME: Well, he has obviously detailed positions with regard to those two things. And if the people who are mad at him about those issues would listen carefully -- not that hopeful about this -- to what he has to say about it, it may ameliorate some of their concerns. But he has a lot to say on both issues. And it's too simple to say he's for common core and he is for unrestricted immigration, which he's not.

WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here. When we come back, we'll discuss the major defeat House Democrats dealt President Obama on trade. Plus, with more U.S. troops on the way to help the Iraqis fight ISIS, is this a sign of mission creep? And what do you think, does the president have a plan to beat ISIS? Let me know on Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday and use the #fns.



BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We don't yet have a complete strategy, because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis as well, about how recruitment takes place, how that training takes place. And so the details of that are not yet worked out.


WALLACE: President Obama this week with the astonishing admission the plan to beat ISIS is still very much a work in progress. And we're back now with the panel. Brit, what do you make of the president saying that we still don't have, his words, a complete strategy nine months after he told the nation that he was going to destroy, degrade, defeat, destroy ISIS, and what about the announcement this week that he's going to send another 450 U.S. troops over there, and the possibility of these lily pad mini bases across the country?

HUME: Chris, the threshold question that I think the president has not publicly answered is does ISIS represent the kind of a threat that must be defeated? I think in his own mind, the answer is no, and that ISIS' atrocities and its territorial gains that we've seen represent a political problem for him, but I don't think he believes it's a major national security problem for the United States. I think he thinks of ISIS as a regional threat.

But he has to do something. He doesn't -- the last thing he wants to do is make a large military commitment in the interests of defeating ISIS. So he's engaged in a bunch of half measures, not even half measures, that aren't working.

My own view is that he doesn't -- he's doing this little next step simply to try to get this monkey off his back. But he's not really serious about defeating ISIS because he doesn't think it's necessary.

WALLACE: Chuck, your thoughts? Does the president have a plan or even a desire to destroy, defeat ISIS, or is it really his effort and his strategy to contain it and run out the clock until the next president comes in?

LANE: Well, I can't read his mind on that. And he said contradictory things. He has said at various times, we must -- this is a terrible threat to the region. We must defeat it. Then it's been ultimately defeat, ultimately degrade or whatever. He has never promised, I will destroy them within X amount of time.

But this latest step I think reminds me a lot of the decision making of Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam. It's -- he hears from one side that he should just cut his losses and get out, and he hears from the other side that we should go all in, and he says, well, let's split the difference and avoid a disaster on my watch. I would say that he's doing his best to avoid a disaster on his watch.

But I must say, the fundamental problem here, which neither -- no American president has been able to solve, is holding Iraq together as a nation where Sunnis and Shia work together. The Shia-dominated government does not trust the Sunnis out there to use their weapons only against ISIS, and the Sunnis do not trust the government that they would be defending to look out for their interests. And until that problem is solved, we could pour a lot more resources in there and not achieve very much.

WALLACE: I want to turn to trade, which we've been discussing throughout the show, and the major defeat that House Democrats handed President Obama, not on the trade deal but on the ability to ever negotiate a trade deal, the fast-track authority so he could submit a deal that Congress would either have to vote up or down, but couldn't amend.

We're going to play for you Nancy Pelosi shocking a lot of people by announcing she was going to vote against the president, and then President Obama this weekend saying he's going to keep it. Here they are.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., MINORITY LEADER: I'll be voting today to slow down the fast track to get a better deal. Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for America's workers.

OBAMA: And if I did not think smart new trade deals were the right thing to do for working families, I wouldn't be fighting for it. This is the right thing to do.


WALLACE: George, what happened in the House this week, and what does it say about President Obama's clout in this town, and especially with members of his own party in the House?

WILL: He has on Capitol Hill all the friends he has earned and deserved, which means that that cohort is vanishingly small. It is reliably reported that when he went up for his 45-minute soliloquy I guess to the Democratic caucus--

WALLACE: Let me just say, on Friday he made -- and it's usually a big deal. The president gets in a motorcade, goes up from the White House up to Capitol Hill, and meets with the House Democratic caucus, all the Democratic members.

WILL: And he told them, he hoped they would play it straight. That's exactly the language he used speaking in Germany about the Supreme Court on the Obamacare, that he hopes the Supreme Court will play it straight. It's not just a verbal tick of his. It's his way of saying that if you don't agree with me, you're not straight, you're crooked. That is, you have bad motives. It's been his theme all along, to insult people by saying you cannot disagree with me honestly and intellectually.

So that's what we're left with. Democrats today are a very curious mixture of the radical and the reactionary. They are radical in the sense that the whole party wants to change the First Amendment, for example, to amend the Bill of Rights to make it less protective.

WALLACE: You're talking there about campaign finance.

WILL: Campaign finance. They want to empower the government to regulate speech about the composition and comportment of the government. That's what they want to do.

And reactionary -- they are now like the 19th century Republican Party, which got prosperous and fat by protectionism, by awarding benefits to various factions and constituents by using tariffs and resistance to free trade.

WALLACE: Susan, as I discussed with Congressman Ryan, this vote on part of fast track authority. It's something called TAA. Basically it would give money -- talk about an odd thing for Republicans -- for Democrats to reject -- it would give money to workers who supposedly have lost their jobs through trade to retrain them. This is a Democratic program. They voted overwhelmingly against it, 302-126. This wasn't close. What is the likelihood -- Ryan said the president has a lot of work to do -- that they can turn this around and avoid this huge defeat this week, in the next couple of days?

PAGE: You got to get close to 100 members of Congress to change their vote within a space of a few days. That's not easy to do. I think it's a hard thing to do. But the one thing that gives the White House some hope is that they need to get Democrats to vote for a Democratic program. And so maybe there's a way to sweeten the deal. Maybe there's a way to tie it to the extension of the highway bill or something else, kind of old-fashioned politicking to get the votes that you need for this -- for this program to train workers, which would clear the way for fast-track authority.

But it's hard, because as George says, he's reaping what he's sown. He went to the congressional baseball game. What if he had done that for the previous six years, just to show when he didn't need them -- when you want a friend to do something for you, you can't make that the first thing you are talking to your friend about. You need to have a foundation for that, and I think it's fair to criticize President Obama for not doing that.

WALLACE: Brit, let me ask you about the bigger argument here about free trade. Big labor. The argument they're making, at this point at least, either on the merits or the politics of it, they're winning in the House, is that free trade benefits big corporations. They can move capital overseas. They can bring cheaper goods back into this country. They say workers either are going to lose their jobs, they'll be shipped overseas, or the pressure from this international global trade will make their wages go down. What are you -- talk about the merits of free trade.

HUME: It's pretty wildly agreed among economists that free trade ends up benefiting countries that participate in it. Now, it can be very disruptive. In other words, free trade is opportunity for different industries perhaps, different lines of work, and old jobs or existing jobs may go away.

The bias and actual bias of politics is to protect the status quo. This is what labor and the Democrats are about on this issue. They're trying to protect the status quo against the threat that may come from trade, which may open up future jobs. But the future jobs are not there yet, therefore they have no constituency. That's what makes this issue very hard politically, but especially for Democrats. But it is -- but if Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and every Republican president has been for these kinds of agreements, you can see that on an intellectual and economic argument, it's a winner.

WALLACE: All right. That's certainly an ending. Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, our power player of the week. A look back at the man who spent almost three decades running the world's biggest library.


WALLACE: A look at Philadelphia as the nation celebrates Flag Day and the 240th birthday of the U.S. Army.

One of the first power players we ever did way back in 2004 announced this week he's retiring. What makes that notable is he was 74 back then. In charge of the world's biggest collection of books and maps, movies and music. Here is a power player classic.


JAMES BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS: (inaudible) you can't find out with a little persistence in the Library of Congress. There are not many secrets in the world.

WALLACE: James Billington is the librarian of Congress, and his job description is as simple as it is daunting. To maintain a universal collection of human knowledge.

BILLINGTON: 28 million printed volumes, that's periodicals and books, in 430 plus languages.

WALLACE: The world's biggest library also has the world's biggest collection of maps and recorded music, and it's open to the public.

How many miles of shelves?

BILLINGTON: We have miles of shelves that ten years ago we said would reach from here to Detroit. We now think it's getting close to Chicago.

Well, this is the great hall. This is the big expanse that Congress wanted. They wanted exuberance. They didn't want just reading rooms. They wanted people to feel the grandeur.

WALLACE: The library has been called the most beautiful public space in America. Built in 1897 for $7 million. By the way, that was under budget and ahead of schedule. Part of the library's job is to keep a living record of America's creativity.

BILLINGTON: We get about 22,000 new items arriving every day. We keep about between 8,000 and 10,000 of those. Much of that -- you can envisage your own mail box. There's an awful lot of junk mail you get that you can almost throw out without opening.

WALLACE: But Billington says you never know when something may be useful. When Pentagon planners worried whether their tanks would sink in the Iraqi sand before the 1991 Gulf War, they turned to German archaeological books from the 19th century.

BILLINGTON: This is maybe the last great reading room of the Western world.

WALLACE: It was created as a library for Congress in 1800. Researchers here still get 600,000 requests a year for everything from a fact check to a detailed study.

BILLINGTON: It's very studiously objective.

WALLACE: So no political spin?

BILLINGTON: No political spin. This is an absolute no-spin zone.

WALLACE: Who knew this is where Bill O'Reilly got his idea.

The Librarian of Congress is appointed by the president to serve for life.

I was astonished to learn that you are only the 13th librarian of Congress since 1800.

BILLINGTON: Some of the people have been here very long periods of time. Two, Spofford, appointed by Lincoln, and Putnam, appointed beginning of the 20th century, between them were librarians of Congress for nearly 80 years.

WALLACE: What is the personal excitement of this job for you?

BILLINGTON: Every time I get on an elevator, I'm talking to somebody who's probably the world's greatest expert on Sri Lankan philosophy. So I learn something new every day. It's an absolute feast.


WALLACE: Billington moved the library into the digital age, putting millions of items online, but a recent government report blamed him for technological failures. Still, when he steps down at the end of the year, Billington will have run the world's greatest library for 28 years.

And that's it for today. Have a great week. We'll see you next “Fox News Sunday.”

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.