Kellyanne Conway: We are going to fight for reasonable restrictions and regulations on abortion

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," April 16, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody. This was the scene outside Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris today.

Now, that amazing scene did not happen on the day before. But it did happen on the day after the fire. During the Holy Week, when Notre Dame lit up like a burning bush and drew people to its flames from the streets of Paris and all over the world. In person, and on T.V.s, and smartphones, all over the globe, they watch.

Europe -- you know, was once home to 65 percent of the world's Catholics.  They spent centuries building churches in every town, from Spain to (INAUDIBLE). Craftsmen toiled away at works of art that most of them would never see -- live to see completed.

Notre Dame took 200 years to create. Today, most people come in. They tour, they gaze at the beauty. They walk around through awhile. But that is not why Notre Dame was built. As Alexandra DeSanctis writes today in the National Review, "Catholics around the world knew this cathedral not only as a place of particular beauty but as a place of transcendence, a house dedicated to God and built to glorify Him, not its creators."

Its beauty told a story of something greater, something not of this world.  The fire was a painful reminder that everything in the earthly city is in the end, only dust.

Joining me now, Raymond Arroyo, Eternal World Television Network News managing editor, and Fox News contributor. Raymond, good to have you here tonight.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Great to be here, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know, I think that this fire has provoked so much feeling and thought about faith in the world, not just about the structure itself.  I just want to put up something before I let you say anything.

ARROYO: Sure.

MACCALLUM: Of a tweet that you said. "As Hugo wrote," Victor Hugo, the author of "Les Miserables," and many other pieces.

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: He wrote that "Notre Dame is a symphony in stone. But she's much more than that. She is the mother church of Europe and a living monument to centuries, of French Catholic belief. She is a sign to the world and this fire has given us a new sign this Holy Week

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Talk about that to me.

ARROYO: Well, it is a new sign. Look, there is been a war going on. A cultural war for many years in -- not only France, all across Europe, between secularism and the Catholic and Christian roots of Europe.

What we saw yesterday, reminded us in a very stark way that when something so beautiful that represents not just beautiful structures or art, Martha, but represents hundreds of years of belief. Deep belief that sent craftsmen to the spires to craft these statues that have withstood the test of time. It was the faith that impelled them and it was a monument to a living faith.

But today, those values, the foundations of Europe are really contested.  What I think happened yesterday is people were shocked into a recognition that this is not only a beautiful museum or something pretty to look at, but it represents who we are as a culture, as a people.

And I spoke to some Parisians who are hardly religious folks, who said, "I was weeping in the streets and didn't quite know why. It was like a part of me was dying." Well, I was a part of them, it is a part of them.

And I think during Holy Week, it's also a reminder -- Martha, you've been covering this crisis in the Catholic Church. It is like the church, Notre Dame, our mother, today. The roof is caved in, the structure is sound, but it's a question of whether it will survive and what form it will take in the future. It's up to all of us to be part of that renewal.

And if it's not just about the externals, it's about what it's filled with, and what's underneath it, and that's faith.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's a great point. I mean, it got a lot of people talking yesterday. And you say, we've talked a lot about what's going on in the church, in the decay, and all of it that needs to be reformed, and rebuilt in so many ways.

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And it's just an awesome metaphor in many ways, I think, for that as you so rightly point out.

ARROYO: It is.

MACCALLUM: But you know, it provoke conversation and this was from CNN last night, I want to get your thoughts on this.

ARROYO: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, HOST, CNN: Let's just say, you're not a believer.

CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR, CNN: Yes.

LEMON: When you were in that -- you know, it'll force you to believe.

CUOMO: It's an interesting message to make sense of.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Beginning a Holy Week, time of rebirth and renewal. We lose something that mattered so much at this time of year.

LEMON: Yes, it is --

CUOMO: It's tough to make sense of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Your thoughts on that.

ARROYO: Well, I do think. It's a -- it's a shock to the system and a reminder that the beautiful things that we see, they're not here forever, we should cherish them while they're here. But I love that the heart of the church -- OK, the heart of Notre Dame, its relics. Its precious treasures were removed.

You had that brave fire chaplain that went in, Father Fournier. Last night, he rescued those relics. These are the crown of thorns that were on Christ's head. The nail that went pierced his flesh.

Again, traditionally, this is the belief. And these things are venerated and have been held in esteem since the time of Constantine.

This is important. This is what the faith is about. Not the structure.  And, I think -- you know, I was reminded of that line when I saw the interior of the church. You're showing some of the images there.

When the smoke cleared, the cross in the back of the -- of the -- behind the altar shone so brightly. And it reminded me of the Maid of Orleans, Joan of Arc, who said, "Hold the cross higher so I can see it through the flames." And that was her -- really her last words. It's what I thought of as I saw that smoke cleared and saw the cross there.

We are left with the cross and it's our decision now what to do with it.  And really, France is committed to rebuilding it, but one hopes the values will also be rebuilt and revivified in this moment.

MACCALLUM: Yes, yes. It's interesting that we also heard from Pope Benedict this week.

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: In terms of reform and change.

ARROYO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: He spoke out from his resignation. Very significant, as well.  Raymond, thank you very much. Great to you tonight as always.

ARROYO: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: My next guest once spent a week with a Pope backstage pass to the Cathedral. Jonah Goldberg is National Review, senior editor. Jonah, good to have you here tonight.

JONAH GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Great to be here.

MACCALLUM: you know, just the decline of church-going, the decline of faith that we've seen in Europe and also here in the United States, as well. Is there any -- is there a larger message that you would like to say something about based on what the conversation that Raymond and I was just having?

GOLDBERG: Sure. And I think Raymond was exactly right that Europe, Europe has been struggling with secularism far more than the United States, as even if the United States has problems on that front as well.

It's worth remembering that the spire of Notre Dame didn't burn -- what -- this wasn't the first time it burned and fell. The French revolutionaries who wanted to convert Notre Dame into a temple of reason and reject God entirely, they did terrible damage to Notre Dame as well.

For me, you know, Raymond who can -- I'm not a Catholic named Goldberg, might have tipped you off. But, you know, for me, I spent -- you know, week working on a documentary about Notre Dame 25 years ago, as one of the best professional moments of my life. And one of the things that as a conservative, that I try to impress upon, especially, younger conservatives, is that conservatism is grounded in gratitude.

And one of the things that we teach young people in this country today is a persistent sense of ingratitude. The opposite of gratitude which is resentment and entitlement.

And one of the really wonderful things about, about this week, despite the tragedy of watching it burn, Notre Dame has didn't damage many times in the past. And it's been constantly updated over eight centuries.

But one of the things you saw was all of a sudden these people who took this landmark -- this relic for a lot of people for granted, all of a sudden, realizing, oh my God, what would France be like if we lost to this?

And we now see that France was doing a very bad job of maintaining Notre Dame before this. And now there's this unbelievable outpouring of support for rebuilding it.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GOLDBERG: And that's -- you know, what conservatism is, is you look around the world, you see these things that you find lovely and lovable that you want to pass on to your children, you want to conserve them.

And Notre Dame, all of the sudden, when it was in peril, people realized this is a huge part of our identity as a people, there's a huge part of our identity as a faith, and they rallied and they realized that they should have been more grateful for it when it was around.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's a great point. And you don't realize -- you know, how much something means until it potentially might be taken away from you.  We have a picture of World War II, American soldiers arriving in Paris, right outside of Notre Dame. I think, if we could put that up.

And you know, obviously, Hitler also wanted to remove, you know, the faith as it existed. And that was restored, you know, by the allied invasion.  And --

(CROSSTALK)

GOLDBERG: Hitler wanted to burn Paris, remember? If Paris burning --

MACCALLUM: And there are plenty of -- yes, there are other religions who would also like to see these churches gone. So, it is -- it's historically so significant to realize that you have to fight for these things.

GOLDBERG: Sure. I mean, Europe's problem is that they subsidize their churches and the pews go empty. In America, we don't subsidize their churches and the pews are still full, at least, among the truly faithful.

And part of the problems that Europeans tend to think that taxation is their form of charity and good works, while Americans still see institutions like churches is the way they do good work in the world.

MACCALLUM: Interesting. Thank you so much. Good to see you tonight, Jonah.

GOLDBERG: Great to be here, thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, did a movie about convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell outraged the Trump administration? The people that work there so much.  That they are considering new measures on legal limits on abortion?  Kellyanne Conway responds to that, and more next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is that smell?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean you got to see this. This is one --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never been an abortion clinic before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: The movie, Gosnell, is getting a ton of attention across the country. There was a packed house viewing of the movie at the White House.  It tells the story of Kermit Gosnell, a doctor who is now serving life in prison for murder, involuntary manslaughter, and numerous counts of performing illegal abortions. Here is a clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He would take scissors and cut the back of their necks. He did it to all of them even the ones that wasn't moving.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some of the babies were moving?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lady, how many times did you see that happen, babies moving?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Members of the administration reportedly so horrified by the film that it has moved them to consider new abortion legislation. Moments ago I spoke with Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President about that and a few other big topics tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Good evening Kellyanne, good to have you here.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So what was the reaction and what kind of new legislation or you know, new moves is the president proposing here?

CONWAY: Well, Martha, as you know the polls show vast majority of Americans are against late-term abortions. They're certainly against what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did which is murdering babies that are already born.

I believe that it's Democratic Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam who really injected this into the public consciousness within the last few months when he said on the radio show that sometimes after the baby is born that you keep the infant comfortable and then you confer with the woman in her physician as to what to do next.

So that's post-birth abortion. And it's outraging even people who call themselves pro-choice. They are against late-term abortion. They're against abortion for sex selection purposes, past 20 weeks for example, past the point where nonpartisan physicians and scientists say a baby can feel pain.

And I believe it's President Donald Trump who on October 19th, 2016 in that final debate in Las Vegas against Hillary Clinton really got this conversation started in earnest and it brought us to where we are now the screening of Gosnell in his White House. Why? Because he was asked a question about abortion and he turned to Hillary Clinton he said no you're the extreme one on abortion, you are, because you would rip that baby out of its mother's womb an hour before it's born.

And I think many people in America collectively went -- and now they're realizing it is done. And it's also done by Planned Parenthood --

MACCALLUM: Let Me ask you -- absolutely --

CONWAY: -- where they get half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer money and give all their money to Democratic candidates. It's outrageous.

MACCALLUM: Let's play a moment from last night because I asked -- we asked Howard Schultz this question we asked Bernie Schultz this question as well about you know, up to the last minute abortion which he said was not a huge problem and it was political because it's rare. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: With regard to abortion, do you believe that a woman should be able to terminate pregnancy up until the moment of birth.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Look, I think that that happens very, very rarely and I think this has been made into a political issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: How big of an issue do you think this is going to be? And again specifically, what legislative moves is -- does the president want to see? What action are you taking at the White House?

CONWAY: It's a huge issue, Martha, because you heard the crowd there too, they don't even like when the question is raised because they know it's a losing issue for them. The legislation that the Democrats voted against recently, again and again, is called the Born Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act.

Let's quickly break that down. Born alive, everybody knows what that means, Abortions Survivor Protection Act. For all the gobbledygook and gibberish that comes out of Capitol Hill that we can't understand what the bill is about, this was pretty straightforward. You survive an abortion, you're born alive, the government should be protecting, they should be giving just reasonable standard of care that we would give to any infant that's alive or any individual that's alive.

The Democrats including Bernie Sanders vote against that. So that is unconscionable to many Americans. And we will continue to fight for reasonable restrictions and regulations that are in line with um with a country that should value life.

MACCALLUM: I want to get two quick topics in with you here. This is Bernie Sanders last night on the question of how you pay for Medicare for all which would be essentially free according to Senator Sanders. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: We got so many e-mail questions, ask Senator Sanders how he's - -

SANDERS: Fair enough. I got it. So if you're asking me -- your question is a fair question. Are people got to pay more in taxes? Yes. But at the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people are going to end up paying less.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: All right, so he's going to have to defend his program there, but what is the White House -- what is the President going to say on this because a lot of people criticize Republicans. They say you don't like ACA but you really have not come out with something that is -- that past -- that could have passed that would fix these problems.

CONWAY: Well, the President as he said earlier this month, Martha, that he wants the Republican Party to be the party of health care. First of all, pre-existing conditions will be protected, non-negotiable, dead stop. But he doesn't want -- the President doesn't want 180 million Americans who currently have private insurance to lose it as they would under Medicare for all.

Also, the President believes that health care in this country should not bankrupt the individual and it should not bankrupt the country. Bernie Sanders has no idea how to pay for that except to increase taxes, and that means it's not going to be free. This is about free stuff versus freedom.  And the president also -- just look what he's done successfully by stabilizing ironically, he stabilized the ObamaCare exchanges through the assistance of health plans --

MACCALLUM: All right, so he's going to protect -- he's going to protect pre-existing conditions --

CONWAY: 100 percent.

MACCALLUM: And that's going to -- and also try to bring down the cost of pharmaceutical and health care so we'll be watching.

CONWAY: Yes, but he doesn't -- Medicare for all means choices for none, Medicare for all versus health care for you. And the president's vision health care for you shores up, protects, and expands the Medicare that the 60 million seniors and disabled currently rely upon. That would be completely gone. Tricare for the veterans is completely gone --

MACCALLUM: Well, we're going to talk about health care a lot and we -- I think the whole --

CONWAY: Thank you. Great town hall.

MACCALLUM: -- the whole country hopes that both people -- thank you -- come up with some actual solutions that will make it cheaper in this country. Before I let you go, stories today about people fearing the wrath of President Trump because their names are going to be exposed in this Mueller report when it comes out in terms of what they told the investigators about what was going on behind the scenes with regard to obstruction. You know, what do you say to that? What's the president's attitude right now? He's been tweeting a lot about this. How is he feeling about this report coming out on Thursday?

CONWAY: Well, we know how he already feel which is no collusion. That was the central premise in the investigation. And I don't know what's in the report. We'll all see it when everybody else sees it. However, Martha, I would say that that's sort of the latest iteration of the palace intrigue stories that the media, the mainstream media tend to love to run around here. It's easier than doing what you and Bret Baier did last night which is have a town hall about issues which is ask the tough questions, try to find solutions to America's problem. They'd rather just try to pit us all against each other in the President against current and former and future staff. I can tell you that we're not looking at it that way at all.

But in those 400 pages, we know what does not exist in its collusion. And let's face it, that was the central premise that a campaign I ran into a successful finale that Donald Trump won fairly and squarely was somehow in a criminal conspiracy with Russians. That's the big lie that was allowed to let fly. We wasted $25 million in 22 months.

MACCALLUM: All right. We'll see what -- as you say, we'll see what it says on Thursday.

CONWAY: You got it.

MACCALLUM: In two words, will the President speak after the report comes out?

CONWAY: I'd expect.

MACCALLUM: You expect he will. OK. Those are two words. Thank you, Kellyanne. Good to see you tonight.

CONWAY: You got it. Thanks.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much.

CONWAY: Take care.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: So as the President prepares to head to Mar-a-Lago for Easter weekend, a judge has a lot of questions today about the Chinese woman who could jolt her way onto the grounds there. There is news there when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So is she a Chinese spy? That is a question that some are asking tonight after a judge in the case of Yujing Zhang, the woman who snuck into Mar-a-Largo carrying multiple electronic devices admitted the suspect was "up to something nefarious." This is the judge talking. Zhang has been denied bail. She is staying in jail as some now questioned the security of President Trump's home away from the White House where he and his family will spend the Easter weekend.

Trace Gallagher digging into the story for us tonight from our West Coast newsroom. Hi Trace!

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: Hi Martha! Federal Judge William Matthewman made it clear he's not buying the suspects narrative in this case and here's why. 33-year-old Yujing Zhang made her way through a Mar-a-Lago security checkpoint by showing resort employees, a couple of Chinese passports, and saying that she was there to go to the swimming pool.

But when Secret Service agents questioned her, Zhang claims she was there to take photographs for a United Nations friendship event except the event had been canceled and prosecutors say Zhang had been notified the event was canceled. The judge was also concerned that Zhang was carrying four cell phones, a laptop, an external hard drive.

Prosecutors have now backed away from previous claims that she was carrying a computer thumb drive containing malware that can infect a computer system although she did get within arm's length of Mar-a-Lago computers. And when asked about the electronics, she told Secret Service she feared they'd be stolen if she left them in her room.

But during a search of her room, agents found more electronics including a device to detect hidden cameras along with $8,000.00 in cash and a number of unsecured credit cards. And that's what prompted the judge to say he believed she was up to something nefarious, adding -- quoting here, it does seem to the court that her alleged innocent explanation is refuted by what she left behind.

Still, there are no charges of spying or espionage. Just that she knowingly entered a restricted area but a former FBI counterterrorism agent wrote in The Washington Post "Mar-a-Lago may present the worst counterintelligence nightmare the country has faced since the Cold War.  And while the Secret Service and a judge are concerned, the President calls it a fluke. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, I'm not concerned at all. I have -- we have very good control. We have extremely good and it's getting better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Zhang is being held without bail because she's a flight risk and even if she was released, immigration agents would likely hold her because her U.S. visa has been revoked Zhang's lawyers say this entire matter is because of a language barrier. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Well, it's pretty clear they're taking it seriously in the way they're holding her. Trace, thank you very much. So my next guest is a frequent guest at Mar-a-Lago. Ron Kessler is an investigative journalist.  He's the author of the Trump White House: Changing the Rules of the Game.

Ron, good to see this evening. You have uncovered nefarious activity in the Secret Service over the course of your reporting, but you don't think that this is anything to be concerned about, why?

RON KESSLER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Yes, I've written two books about the Secret Service and exposed a lot of their laxness. And also broke the prostitution scandal story. But in this case, I think it's much ado about nothing. It doesn't make any difference who is on the property when Trump is not there.

All kinds of people are there for various events. All kinds of people who want to be there just to say they were there. But what counts is when Trump is there. He was not there at the time. If he had been there, it would've been an entirely different story.

She would've been asked for her I.D., which would've been checked by agents who are armed, she would've had to go through a metal detector, and most important if Trump was dining there, agents would've been all around him with a rope line around his table. And anybody who approached, who might've been a threat, it would have been stopped.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, I hear you, but there's more to the security. I mean, obviously protecting the president is number one. But there is also protecting the technology that exists in the place and whether or not somebody is trying to make a connection or leave something.

She had a lot of -- a lot of equipment with her. And she also had this weird device in her room that detects hidden cameras. I mean, who carries around something like that? That's not normal.

KESSLER: Yes. Well, she certainly is suspicious. But you know, as far as the computers go, if she got into the Mar-a-Lago computers she would've found a how many prime steaks they were ordering from --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, but that's precisely some of the problems. And I know you're making -- you go there a lot, frequently you say, right?

KESSLER: Yes. And in fact, as an example of the protection, at one point, my wife Pam and I, went over to say hi to Trump and Melania. Melania was saying hi to her. She leaned over one of the ropes and a Secret Service agent yanked her back. And she's still furious about that, even though we were cleared to be in there.

MACCALLUM: Well, as they should. I mean, I understand. But some people might listen to you right now, and say, well, this man just doesn't want to be closed out at Mar-a-Lago.

I mean, it is odd that there is a presidential residence, and we've seen many presidents have, you know, a summer White House, a winter White House. They are not generally surrounded by or attached to a public environment. That is very unusual.

And here's what all of his defense said. He said "For the safety of the United States secrets -- he's a counterterrorism agent, a former FBI who was very involved after 9/11 -- for the safety of the United States secrets and the president himself, a comprehensive a review of Trump's unique way of working in this counter intelligence implication is urgently needed.

KESSLER: No, that's just ridiculous. You know, the security is just the same as if Trump went to a restaurant or even if he goes to a rally and goes into a crowd. The agents are all around him, it's exactly the same. They don't check the I.D. of everybody in the restaurant.

So, you know, this really is much ado about nothing, and the comment by the former FBI agent is really absurd. And I'm no defender 100 percent of Trump. I have lots of negative items in my book, "The Trump White House," although I do conclude that base on the results --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. No, I don't think it's about positive or negative about the president. I think people just have a concern about his security and the security of the nation and you do not share that concern.

KESSLER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Ron, thank you very much. I got to leave it there.

KESSLER: You know, what is a problem is the fence around the White House.

MACCALLUM: OK.

KESSLER: It has to be increased.

MACCALLUM: We'll get right on there.

KESSLER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: We'll get right on that. Ron, thank you very much. Ron Kessler.

So, coming up next here on The Story, a major backlash for Cher after she dared to agree with President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: We like that song. Can you tell? Any excuse to play "I Got You, Babe."

So, President Trump and Cher, how about that, in one sentence, right? They are agreeing, they had a fleeting moment of agreement, I should say, on immigration. The frequent trump critic tweeting, "I understand helping struggling immigrants. But my city of Los Angeles isn't taking care of its own. What about the 50,000 citizens who live on the streets, people who live below the poverty line, and hungry, if my state can't take care of its own, many are vets, she writes, how can it take care of more?"

Good question, a lot of people asked. President Trump who had suggested sanctuary cities take in immigrants. Then retweeted, saying, "I finally agree with Cher."

Here is how Bernie Sanders responded to what President Trump has been suggesting last night. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Right now, if you were the president of the United States, we have overflowing facilities.

SANDERS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: They need to go somewhere because they're in that asylum --

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: What about building?

MACCALLUM: Where would you put them?

SANDERS: What about building proper facilities for them right now?

MACCALLUM: Where? Where?

SANDERS: That can be done right on the border. Right on the border. At the same --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, the people who live on the border should have more facilities in their states, but sanctuary cities which have said they're open to accepting to people should not take them.

SANDERS: Now this is a political act on the press.

MACCALLUM: No, it's not. It's not a real question.

SANDERS: No, it's not a real question.

MACCALLUM: That's a real question. Yes, it is.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Is it a real question? If you are one of those people and you need to go somewhere, I think it's a real question. It's a real question for all of those individuals who have crossed the border and taking their lives in their hands to do so to try claim asylum here.

Joining me now, Katie Pavlich, Townhall.com news editor and a Fox News contributor and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Welcome to both of you. Great to have you here.

I should mention that Cher was so horrified that the president agreed with her that she sent this really scathing tweet saying all these things about him, I think we have it up, and she called him a lizard brain, among other things.

So that's the next part of the Cher -- of the Cher Twitter saga, just in case you missed it.

But Ed Rendell, let me start with you, you saw what Bernie Sanders said last night, you know, suggesting that it's not a real question to ask what the solution is, the near term solution of where all of these hundreds and thousands of people that have crossed should be taken care of and house while they wait for their process. Your thoughts?

FMR. GOV. ED RENDELL, D-PA.: Well, look, the answer is that the people should be held where the asylum courts are. Because it makes no sense to send them to Chicago, and then bring them back to the asylum courts which are on the border.

So, to that extent, Senator Sanders is right. We ought to believe even if it's temporary, new facilities to house these people who lawfully seeking asylum. They are not illegals. It is legal to come to the United States seeking asylum. That's why we have asylum courts. The asylum courts should be ruled as quickly as possible and determine whether the people could stay in the United States or move out.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this. Because something like 80 to 90 percent of those who come across claiming asylum are not eligible. And then most of them get released into the population. So, it's a pretty, you know, that's a very --

(CROSSTALK)

RENDELL: They shouldn't be released. If they're not eligible for asylum --

(CROSSTALK)

KATIE PAVLICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The law says that.

RENDELL: -- they should be sent back.

MACCALLUM: So, you would change the law?

RENDELL: You have to be held until they have a court decision.

PAVLICH: OK. So, the law now currently states that --

(CROSSTALK)

RENDELL: And once he's on court --

PAVLICH: The law now currently states that unaccompanied minors and families cannot be held for more than 20 days. The asylum backlog in this country is something like 700,000 cases --

RENDELL: Right.

PAVLICH: -- which takes years to get through. So, the law does not allow for ICE and customs enforcement, health and human services to hold these people until their asylum court date. So, they are already being released into the country and they are being released in two places all over -- you know, not just Chicago and sanctuary cities, as the president has suggested, but they're going wherever they please.

And the fact is that the federal government all the time sends unaccompanied minors to sponsors inside the United States to people who are oftentimes here illegally themselves.

One more point on the Cher thing. She's talking about resources here. And we've talked about extensively on the show and others about the laws, I mean, asylum claims and all of that.

But when she is talking about Los Angeles not being able to take care of its own, she's right. I mean, illegal immigration is a devastating problem when it comes to economics because it's about limited resources, whether it's health care, incarceration, police resources, humane conditions to put people who are coming into the country.

And it's a matter of government not being able to provide for people who are citizens in their cities right now. And now we are dumping thousands of people into those cities and expecting them to have humane conditions.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let me ask Ed this. This is Mayor de Blasio, you know, he is one, the Oakland mayor and another who have said that we should be welcoming everybody into our country and they are essentially sanctuary cities. But when it comes to this question of, well, you know, could you take some of them? No way. No way. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-N.Y.: It's illegal. It's plain illegal. We'll meet them in court, we'll beat them in court. He said he was not cutting off our security funding because we did not ask documentation status, because we would not cooperate with everything ICE was doing, we said we will go to court and stop him. We did. So, this is just patently illegal. We'll stop it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, there is -- you know, basically, what the president has done here, Ed, is to call their bluff and say, you say that we need to be open. But many of these cities are not obviously on the border and they're not dealing with the day-to-day difficulties of the situation.

And then as soon as somebody suggests, you know, that maybe they could help take some of these people, no way. No way. The Oakland mayor who, you know, tipped people off to ICE, she said, no, thank you. You can't come here. We can't handle it. What did you think about that hypocrisy?

RENDELL: Well, it is hypocritical. But the bottom line is, Katie is right, the law should be change.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

RENDELL: Twenty days is ridiculous given the current burden. We should construct these facilities where the asylum courts are. Because if you send someone to Philadelphia or Chicago or Oakland, and the asylum courts are on the border, the chances of getting them back ever are nil.

So, we've got to do it in a comprehensive way that makes sense. We've got to hire more asylum judges. We've got -- just like we need to hire more border enforcement troops.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Do you think we should change the asylum laws so that we don't have 80 to 90 percent of the people who come seeking asylum not eligible? Should we change the law?

RENDELL: No. What we should do is make it clear that if you come here seeking asylum, you are going to be held at the border until you have your day in court in the asylum, and if you lose and the judge does not grant you asylum, you are sent back.

MACCALLUM: Right.

RENDELL: And if we do that, it will stop the influx.

MACCALLUM: We got to leave it there. Thank you very much, Ed Rendell and Katie Pavlich. Good to have you both here tonight.

PAVLICH: And great job last night as well.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much.

PAVLICH: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: It was active in there. A little crazy.

All right. So, the wealthy Americans, the patriotic millionaires who want to pay more in taxes, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANDERS: But the very wealthy are doing incredibly wealthy is not vilified. To say that people have a whole lot of money, in some cases billions of dollars of wealth. They should pay their fair share of taxes.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Right.

SANDERS: A lot of stuff vilified.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, a group of wealthy individuals dubbed The Patriotic Millionaires agree with Sanders' sentiment to tax the rich more. They want high net worth Americans including themselves to pay more in taxes in order to benefit the greater good.

Eric Schoenberg, a member of The Patriotic Millionaires. He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University. Eric, good to have you here today.

ERIC SCHOENBERG, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, I mean, there's -- why -- we asked Bernie Sanders, you know if you believe so strongly that people should pay, he said 52 percent, he's had 70 percent state tax. That's also on top of that, a lot of taxes on it. Why don't you just carve out the money that that would constitute and send a check to the government? Nobody is stopping you from paying more if you truly feel in your heart that you should pay more?

SCHOENBERG: Right. So essentially what you're asking me is do I believe we should have a voluntary tax?

MACCALLUM: We do. You could pay check to the government any day of the week.

SCHOENBERG: No, but I'm saying should you be unable to pay whatever you want?

MACCALLUM: No. What I'm saying everybody has the base line. But if you feel as he does that rich people aren't taxed enough, you could certainly write an extra check and send it into the IRS. They love it.

SCHOENBERG: Why is that -- how is that different from saying people should pay what they think they owe?

MACCALLUM: Because some people would pay nothing and there's a basic amount that everyone seems to agree should be paid.

SCHOENBERG: OK. So, you're saying the taxes to them should be a minimum and then everybody should pay what they think above that --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, that's --

SCHOENBERG: Why is that not voluntary?

MACCALLUM: No, I'm saying -- I'm saying the status quo that we live in now is in place. If people like Bernie Sanders believes that he should pay more as a millionaire, he has every right to do so.

SCHOENBERG: Because you said it yourself, we're not saying -- I'm not saying I want to pay more tax that the promise I'm not paying enough. I'm saying, you're not paying enough. All the rich people out there aren't paying enough.

I want all the rich people to pay their fair share in taxes. Let's be clear about where we are today. In 2017, I had an income about $1.3 million. My effective tax rate was about 22 percent. I believe that's too low. Under the new Republican --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, pay more. Write a check.

SCHOENBERG: Under the new Republican tax bill my tax rate is going down to about 18 percent. I think that's really too low.

MACCALLUM: So, pay more, Eric.

SCHOENBERG: Jared Kushner --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Write a check.

SCHOENBERG: -- paid zero taxes over the last decide.

MACCALLUM: Write a check and pay more.

SCHOENBERG: I believe that is absurdly, perhaps illegally allowed.

MACCALLUM: Look, I don't think anybody should pay zero taxes.

SCHOENBERG: But this -- well, then, but you are saying you think you should decide -- everybody should decide for themselves what to send in. And if I --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: No. I'm saying that I don't want to pay more taxes. I think I paid plenty of taxes but if you feel guilty about not paying enough, you should pay more.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOENBERG: Why is that not saying you want a voluntary tax system? Why am I responsible for paying the salaries of our military forces overseas but you're not? Where do you think this money goes? Why is it my responsibility to pay the salaries of all our fighting men and women.

MACCALLUM: Why do you have so much faith in the federal government that they are going to do well by the extra money that all these people send them?

SCHOENBERG: Well let's be clear. When you say extra money what just happened is the Republicans passed a tax bill that borrowed $1.5 trillion to give 80 percent of it and benefits to rich people like me and right group are saying --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And you know what has happened since then?

SCHOENBERG: -- we don't need the money. We don't think that's right.

MACCALLUM: We have seen stimulated business group, companies buying more machines, companies employing more workers. People at the lower end of the wage spectrum have benefited more than the people at the upper end of the wage spectrum --

SCHOENBERG: But you know, the president --

MACCALLUM: -- from tax cuts and deregulation in America. That's just a fact.

SCHOENBERG: The president said that he wanted to cut taxes on middle-class people. If that's what had happened in the tax bill, I would have supported it. But that's not what happened. I'm fully in favor. If you want to improve the economy why can't we put more --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: No. But because of the cuts in the place that they went they ended up benefiting businesses and people and employment.

SCHOENBERG: -- money in the pockets of the middle-class Americans --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: We are.

SCHOENBERG: -- who work hard and use that to spend.

MACCALLUM: That's what's happening right now. Their wages are up.

SCHOENBERG: You put more money in my pocket it's not going to go anywhere. I don't need the extra money.

MACCALLUM: You know, it's a whole concept.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOENBERG: I do not believe that we have to have a voluntary system.

MACCALLUM: There is the question of, whether or not if you free up money people put it to work in businesses and they employee people which is exactly what we've seen happening over the past two years.

SCHOENBERG: It is not what we've seen happening.

MACCALLUM: Yes, it is. And as I just said --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOENBERG: And let's be clear.

MACCALLUM: -- wage goes this up. The middle class are doing better.

SCHOENBERG: Let me be clear about something. The American people will agree with me. They don't believe the rich are paying their fair share in this country.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Look, nobody --

SCHOENBERG: And I'm here to tell them they're right.

MACCALLUM: And I don't think anybody should pay zero. I don't think any -- like Bernie Sanders --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOENBERG: So how much should I pay? Should I give all my money to the government?

MACCALLUM: Give whatever you want. If you want to give extra you write a check. So, knock yourself out.

SCHOENBERG: And what if I say I want to give zero? Why is -- what's the problem with that?

MACCALLUM: Because that's not fair.

SCHOENBERG: Let me be clear about something. Why is that not fair? Donald Trump has claimed that this tax bill will cost him money.

MACCALLUM: Right.

SCHOENBERG: I have said this tax bill is going to save me $50,000. Do you believe the president when he says he is going to be actually be paying more taxes as a result of this tax bill, who is going to be more honest and open --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I think that he should pay whatever the law says he should pay that passed by --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOENBERG: Then why should I do any different?

MACCALLUM: That's how it works.

SCHOENBERG: He says he's a genius for lowering his tax bill as much as possible.

MACCALLUM: He wants to pay the least amount legally and you want to pay more than the least amount legally.

SCHOENBERG: No.

MACCALLUM: I've got to go.

SCHOENBERG: I want us all to pay the same amount equally.

MACCALLUM: I've got to go. Eric, thank you very much. I've got Steve Hilton waiting so I've got to get to him because I know he is going to -- want to respond.

Steve, welcome. Host of The Next Revolution. What do you think about that?

STEVE HILTON, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Well, first, what a great debate. I love that, Martha, and a great job last night. I just want to echo what Katie said earlier. And I love what Peggy Noonan said. She said that your town hall last night was the first electric political moment of 2019. I certainly agree.

MACCALLUM: I like that. I like Peggy too.

HILTON: Yes, very cool. So, this, this argument it's so ridiculous because the truth is if we are going to take it seriously there is a very simple saying here that is true, which is, you don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

The fact is in the free market capitalist system, you will always going to have a range of income. You are going to have some people are rich and some people are poor and a lot of people in the middle.

Americans understand that and accept it with one condition. That there is the opportunity for people to rise, to climb the ladder, work hard and get richer. The problem is, the reason inequality is a problem is because in the last year, it feels like people are stuck. That you don't have those opportunities. So that's the real point.

And if you look at the reason for that, is not because of taxes. The number one reason that social mobility has stalled in America, is actually family breakdown. If you really want to help people get on and get opportunities, the best thing you can do is to make sure that children are raised in a stable, loving home with two parents. You never hear that from people on a socialist left.

MACCALLUM: All right. Quick question before I let you go. Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of heat from Democrats because he is doing well. Are they going to do the same thing to him again that they did last time?

HILTON: It looks like it. It looks like there is the stop Bernie movement in the Democratic establishment.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HILTON: They've learned nothing from 2016. They are going to try to stop him because they think that people still want the establishment, but they don't. People still want an outsider to shake things up.

I think Bernie's policy is going to put people off. But the worst thing that Democratic insiders can do is to try and rig the race all over again because that's just going to infuriate Bernie's crowd. And they are pretty big.

MACCALLUM: Yes. They are pretty big and we can see it going all the way to the convention may be. Steve, thank you very much. Steve Hilton, good to see you tonight. We're going to have more of the stories.

HILTON: Good to see you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Stick around. Coming up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So that is "The Story." It's a busy one for this Tuesday night. As always, you can e-mail us your thoughts. We'd love to hear them at the story@foxnews.com. We will see you back here tomorrow night at seven, sharp.
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.