Men expect to spend more than women expect to on Valentine's Day

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," February 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, HOST: Is the Green New deal about to derail?

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

And just as California's governor is slamming the brakes on a high-speed rail project -- rail project -- citing those exploding costs, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to force a vote on the Democrats' Green New Deal, which would replace planes with high-speed trains.

At least six Democratic senators running or considering running for president are co-sponsoring it. Should they be worried about it?

Well, we're on it with Senate Majority Whip John Thune on that upcoming vote. He's here in just a moment.

But, first, Peter Doocy on Capitol Hill with the fallout from all of this - - Peter.

PETER DOOCY, CORRESPONDENT: Charles, Mitch McConnell wants to give anybody in the Senate who supports the very bold and aggressive provisions of the Green New Deal a chance to vote for it.

But we caught up with one of the co-sponsors, Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, who says, she doesn't think that's necessarily fair.


SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think this is an opportunity for us to talk about a vision for this country that is exciting. And so, if we have a vote, we have a vote, and we could be what we're for.

But I think the vote being called today is just a political stunt.


DOOCY: Senator Gillibrand joins Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris as presidential candidates co-sponsoring the bold Green New Deal, which calls for quickly transforming society until nobody relies on fossil fuel.

But there's no legislative text putting the Green New Deals ideas into a specific bill or resolution. And that's why the Senate sponsor, Ed Markey, says this: "Don't let Mitch McConnell fool you. This is nothing but an attempt to sabotage the movement we are building. He wants to silence your voice, so Republicans don't have to explain why they are climate change deniers. McConnell wants this to be the end. This is just the beginning."

Republican critics of the resolution have been referring regularly to frequently asked questions that were published and then retracted by Green New Deal supporters. And they suggested a future without airplanes or cows, which Iowa's Chuck Grassley has a problem with.


SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IA: A lot of people in this country, mostly city slickers, that think food grows in supermarkets and not on farms, I think it's very unrealistic.


DOOCY: I caught up with Senator Kamala Harris, another candidate earlier today, asked her if she is supportive of this vote. And she said she supports the Green New Deal. And her office points out she wouldn't be a co-sponsor of the measure if she didn't want to actually have a vote on it -- Charles.

C. PAYNE: Makes sense. Hey, thank you very much, Peter.

Well, if Democrats want it, how come many of them are very reluctant to vote on it?

With me now, Conservative Review's Deneen Borelli, Run For America CEO David Burstein, and FOX Business Network's Ashley Webster.

Deneen, let me start with you.

It's immediately the Democrats called for -- calling this a stunt. But I thought, hey, if this is what you want, you're getting a lot of publicity from it, the whole -- all the presidential candidates on the Democratic side have rallied around this, why not vote on it?

DENEEN BORELLI, CONSERVATIVE REVIEW: Yes, make up your mind, right?

This is a fundamental transformation of America on steroids, because this is a sweeping agenda for more government control and intervention in our everyday lives. So, yes, why would they not want to go on the record? Because they would have to defend this to their constituents.

And the constituents need to know who supports this and who doesn't, because this will affect all Americans, if this is something that -- the utopia that the Democrats want to go through.

C. PAYNE: David, of course, we're hearing that it's broad strokes, there's a lot to be filled in, but it starts the conversation.

But a vote would also allow Americans to see who -- who's for what at this particular time.

DAVID BURSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, look, I think they should have a vote on it, frankly.

And as Senator Harris said, why propose bill if you don't want to vote on it? I think we actually have become engaged in a politics -- and Mitch McConnell's responsible for this to some degree as well -- there's broad bipartisan support in the Senate for all sorts of bills that Mitch McConnell doesn't want to bring up for a vote.

It's obvious that he wants to bring this up not just because he wants the Democrats...


C. PAYNE: Well, why do you think he wants to bring it up?


C. PAYNE: Why do you think he thinks Democrats are embarrassed by it?

BURSTEIN: Because I think he realizes that the bill is -- that the thinking on it is not fully matured, that mostly it's been a talking point, and it's not an actual -- it's not really an actually well-formed piece of legislation, right?

And he knows that people running for president and this is going to be something that people are going to have to go on record about. He knows it's going to fail.

Let's be clear. If Mitch McConnell thought there was a chance this would pass, he wouldn't be bringing it up for a vote.

C. PAYNE: Right.

But, Ashley...


C. PAYNE: ... the broad strokes part of it, with the no airplanes and...

WEBSTER: It's ridiculous.

C. PAYNE: Yes, so it's -- but presidential candidates have glommed on to it. They're saying, hey, I'm on this platform as well.

WEBSTER: I can only imagine they did that before actually reading it. It is only 14 pages' long. But it's complete fantasy.

And from the business side of things, how the heck are you going to pay for this, tens of trillions of dollars? They will run up the national debt, put it on the national credit card. They will print money and raise interest rates to try and control inflation.

Bottom line is, this is -- and to your point, it is government overreach on steroids. That's absolutely right. It's -- it would be funny if it wasn't true. In fact, it's not funny. It's scary.

C. PAYNE: But it is popular, though, Deneen.

I mean, can you deny that it's not popular, particularly with younger voters?

BORELLI: Maybe for some, but they don't really know what's involved and what the cost is going to be, because we're going to end up paying for this nonsense.

So this isn't reality. They're looking to do away with fossil fuels? Are you kidding me, in 10 years? So what are we supposed to do, heat your home, cool your home? How are you going to drive your cars?

They don't want you to do that. It's all about government control and it's outrageous.

BURSTEIN: I think what people do support -- and to the point that, you ask 10 people on the street what the Green New Deal is, 10 people will tell you 10 different things.

But what people do support and why this is popular is because people do believe that climate change is a serious national issue, and they do believe that we need to...


C. PAYNE: Is it serious enough to destroy entire industries?


BURSTEIN: Perhaps not, but it is -- but it's an opportunity to both grow the economy strategically and rethink the ways we do lots of things in this country.

And so people see that as an opportunity. That's where the New Deal terminology comes from.

C. PAYNE: We found, after the Paris accord, right, that, in the last couple years, America's CO2 output has actually gone down, in part to natural gas.

WEBSTER: Correct.

C. PAYNE: While China, India, these are...


WEBSTER: So, that's the problem.

C. PAYNE: So, how can Americans and watching Americans foot the bill in a foolish attempt to curb climate change...

WEBSTER: They shouldn't, when others...

C. PAYNE: ... when the rest of the world, the key polluters out there, aren't going to stop?

WEBSTER: And the president pointed that out just the other day.

And he's absolutely right. Why should we play by these very strict rules, when some of the biggest countries out there, the biggest polluters, are doing absolutely nothing?

And, by the way, under this scenario, isn't it the bureaucrats that are going to run all of this? Have you seen how they run the post office? Have you seen how they run Amtrak? The list goes on and on.

BORELLI: It's ugly.


C. PAYNE: Meanwhile, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey claiming that this vote is sabotage. And, well, we called him. And, so far, we have gotten no response.

So to Senate Majority Whip and South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune.

Senator Thune, thanks for joining us.

SEN. JOHN THUNE, R-S.D.: Charles, nice be with you. Thanks.

C. PAYNE: The notion that somehow this is sabotage, that Senator McConnell is pulling a fast one, what are your thoughts?


THUNE: I don't think he's pulling a fast one.

I think he's asking people to go on the record and find out where people are on this great hot new idea that Democrats have come up with that somebody else gets to pay for.

C. PAYNE: Are you surprised, though, that all the declared Democratic candidates and many of those who are on the -- on the cusp of declaring have all said, hey, this is part of our platform too, we support this?

THUNE: It is kind of surprising, Charles.

But I think if you look at where the Democrat Party in this country is moving, they have taken a hard socialist turn. And the issue with every one of these socialist fantasies is, it sounds really good as long as somebody else's paying for.

But when you hand somebody the bill and they realize what the price tag is, all of a sudden they have a different impression. And I think that's where a majority of Americans as they look at this and they listen to this discussion, that's where they're going to land. They're going to say, OK, they're realists.

They're going to say, what does this thing cost? And they're going to do the cost-benefit in their own minds and conclude that this is a really bad deal for American workers and American families who are going to get stuck paying the bill for all these socialist fantasies that some on the far left have come up with, and evidently a lot of Democrat candidates for president have decided to embrace.

C. PAYNE: Well, if you look at the broad strokes, because that's all we really have, it feels like this perhaps is an extension of the social justice movement that was very prevalent under President Obama.

You look at some of the things, high-quality health care, affordable, safe and adequate housing, economic security, these aren't necessarily climate change issues. These are sort of issues that -- where they're telling the American public, hey, it's all going to be part and parcel of this major package, climate change will be the headline, but we will take care of all the ails of this country.

THUNE: Right.

And I think they -- it comes from -- it stems from the sort of ideology that government knows best, and it knows best when it comes to the decisions that people make in their daily lives. They have got -- if you look at the agenda that they have advanced, we're talking about a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent, a wealth tax at 90 percent, an increase in the business tax.

You're talking about open borders, you're talking about Medicare for all, which costs $32 trillion, and the Green New Deal, which they say will cost the average family about $30,800 more in annual energy costs.

So these are all -- they're all part of this sort of utopia that a lot of the government engineers in places like Washington come up with. But in the lives of the American people, they have real, practical, everyday costs.

C. PAYNE: Right.

THUNE: And that's what the American people are going to be looking at.

C. PAYNE: Senator Thune, speaking of open borders, I got to get your thoughts on this proposed shutdown resolution or compromise, if you will, and the potential for President Trump to sign it, and there being a vote on it.

THUNE: Right.

I think, Charles, there is, as you know, in a negotiation, some give and take. Nobody got everything that they wanted. But the point that I tell people is, the president is going to build a wall. And that's what the president wanted out of all this. And he's going to get more wall, twice as much wall as was appropriated for in the last fiscal year, and three times as much as would have been allowed for in a continuing resolution, had the government been funded that way.

C. PAYNE: Although he's getting a fraction of the money that he requested originally.

THUNE: Sure.

I mean, he's not getting what he wanted. And I think he knows that. There are other ways he can get some of those dollars by reprogramming existing funds. He will get there.

But this is an incremental process. And this is a down payment. We have talked about it that way, but he is going to be building wall. And he got the Democrats to concede. They weren't going to put a single dollar into wall funding.

And if you look at what they were trying to do with capping the number of beds, the number of criminals that could be detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, that also was a win. And I think the president can live to fight another day, but he's going to get wall funding.

And I think that's the important message coming out of this discussion.

C. PAYNE: Senator John Thune, thank you very much. Always a pleasure.

THUNE: Thanks, Charles. You bet.

C. PAYNE: Thank you.


C. PAYNE: Hey, so who needs $1.3 billion, when you can get 14?

Republican Senator Ted Cruz says take the $14 billion in assets tied to El Chapo and build the wall. What does former Obama and Trump ICE Chief Tom Homan think of that idea?

Well, we're going to ask him. He's next.


C. PAYNE: Now that Mexican drug lord El Chapo is facing prison for life, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz says, let's fund the border wall once and for all. How?

By taking the $14 billion in drug profits and other assets tied to the drug kingpin. But would that work?

Let's ask former acting ICE Director, Fox News contributor Thomas Homan.

Thomas, what do you think of that idea? It seems like a pretty brilliant idea.

THOMAS HOMAN, CONTRIBUTOR: Actually, I think it is.

Look, use -- he made money. The organization made money because of our weak border. Use that money to help secure the border. I think it makes perfect sense.

C. PAYNE: Of course, some may argue that the way he made the money, people died over the money, maybe it's blood money.

Would that be pangs of consciousness with respect to that? Or considering, you know, the sort of social benefit...


HOMAN: Charles, if you're talking to me, I cannot hear anything. Someone is stepping on you.

C. PAYNE: OK. We will keep trying, Thomas Homan.

In the meantime, just to let you know, we did also reach out to Senator Cruz on this. And so far, we have not heard back.

But it is an interesting idea, to say the least, $14 billion. And you have to weigh them, right? You have to weigh on one hand the idea that this money is -- we would have to consider it blood money.

On the other idea -- hand, though, border security, which would help everyone, help Americans. It would also help those on the other side of the border making the dangerous trip.

Thomas, so, as I just saying, is, it's a complicated proposal; $14 billion is very enticing. But it's money that did come at the expense of a lot of people's lives.

HOMAN: It did.

But I truly believe this, Charles. You build that wall, you are going to save a lot of lives. Look, we had two children die, which is a tragedy. But they came through a part of the border there wasn't a wall.

Look, that wall will save lives. It will help. The illegal alien population coming through the border right now are paying off the cartels. The cartels are making money, because an alien smuggling organization must pay them to work through their plazas.

This works perfect sense. Build a wall, cartels get less money, illegal aliens can go through the port of entry, rather than paying these cartels. It's going to hurt the cartel's bottom line and it's going to save lives. It's going to save a lot of lives.

Border Patrol last year saved 4,000 people that were in trouble coming across that border. This makes perfect sense to me.

C. PAYNE: Now, most of these assets are in Mexico. So there would probably have to be some form of negotiation with Mexico.

Do you think they would be OK with that?

HOMAN: Look, I think I they should be.

They have had a war on drugs in their country for many years. And I think this will help hold the cartels in check. And, look, it's the right thing to do. Their citizens are dying, too. And people sent to America are transiting their country and they're dying.

Thousands of people have died. Look at the latest stat -- 31 percent of the women being smuggled through Mexico from Central America are being raped. And that's a Doctors Without Borders number. That's not an ICE number. That's not a DHS number. It's the right thing to do for the people.

C. PAYNE: The compromise negotiated 55 miles of border wall, substantially less money than President Trump wanted, although substantially more than Nancy Pelosi said would be offered.

Are you OK with this? Are you OK with President Trump signing this and perhaps finding other resources, and living to fight another day, or should President Trump draw a line here and continue to hold against -- for a larger amount?

HOMAN: Until I see the language and exactly what they're trying to propose, because I have seen 100 different stories, I think he holds the line.

I do not like the deal. When you got illegal immigration on the rise, and you're going to take beds away, to me, you don't have to be a genius. That doesn't make sense. And they're proposing 42,000 beds for ICE.

They got 49,000 in custody today. So, that is going to cause a release of criminals. That's just the stone cold facts. So, I don't like what I see. I would have to see the language in the appropriations bill to find out, can they transfer money?

Because, last year, they transferred money, everybody had a fit. If it requires House approval to transfer money, that is never going to happen. So, I would like to see the language.

C. PAYNE: Thomas Homan, thank you very much..

HOMAN: Thank you, sir.

C. PAYNE: Coming up.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: That was not a question. That was -- I -- I reserve the right to my time. That was not a question.


ELLIOTT ABRAMS, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It is not right that a member of the committee can attack a witness who is not permitted to reply.


C. PAYNE: Fireworks today between Democrat freshman Ilhan Omar and President Trump's special envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams. What started it?

We're on it.



OMAR: In 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.

I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.

ABRAMS: If I could respond to that...

OAR: It wasn't a question.


ABRAMS: ... an attack.


OMAR: That was not a question. That was -- I -- I reserve the right to my time.

That was not a question.


ABRAMS: It is not right that a member of the committee can attack a witness who is not permitted to reply.


C. PAYNE: A heated exchange between Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and U.S. Special Representative to Venezuela Elliott Abrams during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Venezuela.

Rich Edson has the latest -- Rich.

RICH EDSON, CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Charles.

And this is a return to Latin American policy for Elliott Abrams. During the Reagan administration, he served as an assistant secretary in that region. And so a number of Democrats are asking in questioning whether his experience in the Reagan administration in that administration's intervention in the civil war in El Salvador, for example, robs him of the credibility that he needs to serve this administration.


ABRAMS: From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That's a fabulous achievement.

OMAR: Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?

ABRAMS: That is a ridiculous question.


OMAR: Yes or no.



OMAR: I will take that as a yes.


ABRAMS: I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack, which is not a question.


EDSON: Abrams says he was promoting democracy in Latin America then.

He also fielded questions previously about his involvement in Iran-Contra and whether that hampers him at all in his dealing with Latin American leaders today.

He says that leaders are focused on the events of 2019 there, not the events of the 1980s -- Charles.

C. PAYNE: Thank you very much, Rich.

And now to this.


SEN. RICHARD BURR, R-N.C.: I'm not sure how to put it any clearer than I have said it before. We have no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


C. PAYNE: Pretty clear statement from Senate Intel Committee Chairman Richard Burr, but his Democratic counterpart has some issues with claims of no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

To FOX News Channels' Catherine Herridge with the very latest -- Catherine.


The committee's ranking Democrat is not going as far, pointing to what Senator Warner describes as suspicious contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, telling reporters -- quote -- "When you have got a campaign chairman sharing polling data with a known Russian agent, when you have as many indictments that have come out of the Mueller investigation, when you see the level of unprecedented contact between Russians and folks within the Trump campaign."

And there may be more legal exposure for the president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen after he failed to show for the Senate committee subpoena, citing medical reasons.


BURR: I can assure you that any goodwill that might have existed in the committee with Michael Cohen is now gone.

The way he's positioning himself, not coming to the committee, we may help him go to prison.


HERRIDGE: Burr was angered by media reporting that Cohen was out and about last weekend, as well as Monday night.

Cohen testified before the same committee two years ago about a Moscow real estate project in 2016. Cohen later pled guilty to lying about those facts.

Cohen's attorney offered this defense to Fox News: "The medication Mr. Cohen is currently taking made it possible for him to testify this week. We -- impossible," rather, "to testify this week. We believe Senator Burr should appreciate that it is possible for Mr. Cohen to be in pain and still have dinner in a restaurant with his wife and friends."

Meantime, House Democrats now plan a vast probe of President Trump and Russia, with a strong focus on money laundering that will include multiple committee hearings and public events that could last well into 2020.

Republicans accuse Democrats at this stage of moving the goalposts. First, it was a junior Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos. Then it was the anti-Trump dossier that was funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign, and now they have a new focus on the money trail -- Charles.

C. PAYNE: Catherine, thank you very much.

HERRIDGE: Welcome.

Well, we're going to get reaction to all of this from Ohio Republican Congressman and member of the Oversight Committee Jim Jordan. He's coming up in just a few minutes.

And to a real crisis both parties are ignoring. The nation's debt is soaring, now $22 trillion and counting. And while these guys stick their head in the sands, guess who is going to end up getting stuck with the tab?


C. PAYNE: Valentine's Day tomorrow. Are men getting the short end of the stick? Well, the numbers, let's just say they are very, very telling.

Happy Valentine's Day, fellows.







C. PAYNE: These guys just found out -- that's right -- our national debt just topped 22 trillion bucks for the first time ever.

And instead of both political parties screaming about cutting spending, they're actually increasing it.

Here now to debate, Payne Capital Management president Ryan Payne, and National Taxpayer Union senior fellow Mattie Duppler.

Mattie, there was a time when this was sort of news. I mean, are we just so numb to it now we don't care?

MATTIE DUPPLER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I would argue that both politicians and Americans have become somewhat inured to the notion of the growing national debt.

And, sometimes, you can't blame them, right? A couple trillion here, a couple trillion there. All of a sudden, you're talking about real numbers.

But I think that clip you played was right on. We are careening towards a cliff, and we don't know how to stop ourselves. Now, in some ways, it's alarming, but not shocking, that politicians have not started to use the national debt as an issue that they actually want to try and tackle.

But, frankly, if you look into the future, $22 trillion now, but a trillion every year after that really starts to make a dent. And the reason that politicians should care about this is for both political reasons and realistic ones as well.

One is that it destabilizes the future for all Americans. So if you're potentially a Republican or conservative who talks a lot about economic opportunity, those opportunities narrows as the debt continues to squeeze out other kinds of investment.

C. PAYNE: Right.

DUPPLER: But if you're a Democrat, and you think the federal government should be spending a lot on different programs, those priorities will also be undermined by the fact that the debt will take up a greater part of the federal budget.

C. PAYNE: Well, and the Green New Deal, I mean, that's -- this $22 trillion will probably be a drop in a bucket, Ryan.


C. PAYNE: But to Mattie's point, there will be a time very soon when we're spending a trillion dollars a year on the interest.


C. PAYNE: And when Americans think about what that money could be used for other than that, then I think people start to get upset.

R. PAYNE: Yes, that's a good point, Charles.

I think the big thing is, we have been really lucky, because, let's face it, interest rates have been extremely low. So our debt service hasn't been astronomical.

But the reality of it is, inflation is starting to go up, not astronomically here. Interest rates have already start to go up since the midsummer -- summer of 2016. So, at some point here, as interest rates rise, debt service goes up, and then it becomes a real big problem for the economy, almost an anchor on any kind of growth.

C. PAYNE: But it's not a problem yet, though, is it?

We had a CPI number out today. It actually keeps going down. There's no signs of real, classic inflation. And many people wonder, in this Amazon era, Ryan, if we would ever get the sort of 1970s, early '80s inflation, if that's even possible.

And, if not, maybe that emboldens politicians to keep spending more.

R. PAYNE: I mean, sadly, yes, it probably does embolden to politicians keep spending more.

What I think we have to think about is, at some point, that's going to slow the growth of the economy. And when you have global economies around the world that are starting to grow faster than the U.S., money is going to start to leave the U.S., which hence is going to raise interest rates.

C. PAYNE: Mattie, you always present it in a very logical way, but you're not running for election or reelection.


DUPPLER: That's no, Charles.

C. PAYNE: How do we get folks who want to stay in Washington, D.C., forever, right? They want to bring the bridge to nowhere back home to get reelected.


C. PAYNE: How do we get them to understand the urgency of the problem?

DUPPLER: Yes, Charles.

Inarguably, the bias towards spending is a hard one to correct for the institutions here in Washington, D.C. But, listen, you look at the Congressional Budget Office, you look at the other bean counters here in town, it is clear what the problem is.

They tell us over the next 10 years that revenues are going to stabilize around their historical averages, but spending is going to continue to spiral out of control.

So it's going to take some bravery from politicians on both sides of the aisle to start tackling some of these problems. The point made earlier by Ryan, the fact that we have got a debt that's going to get more expensive for the federal government, probably isn't going to be an issue until we start to see consequences for private industry.

And I'm talking about the debt limit that's coming due on March 1. We will see in the summer when that debate continues to pick up. But politicians need to start feeling the pain that private enterprises feel when they're making these decisions about how they're going to service their own debt.

C. PAYNE: Mattie, Ryan, thank you both very much.

R. PAYNE: Thanks, Charles.

DUPPLER: Thanks, Charles.

C. PAYNE: Hey, the mainstream media calling the border compromise a huge loss for President Trump.

Time to call out the huge hypocrisy. We report, you decide -- next.



STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": This deal gives Trump less than $1.4 billion for just 55 miles of fences.


COLBERT: The border is 2,000 miles.


COLBERT: So, of course, they will need to set aside money for signs that say, "Please attempt to cross only at fence."



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: The president also says he's proud of what he accomplished, but, keeping them honest, it's unclear, even by his own terms, what he really accomplished.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: This reminds me of Homer Simpson and Lionel Hutz negotiating with Montgomery Burns, where he says, I have another offer for you, and hands them a slip of paper that says zero, and they go, we will take it.


C. PAYNE: Well, the mainstream media mocking a loss for President Trump on a nearly $1.4 billion border wall bill.

But my next guest says, what about this?


QUESTION: Is there any situation in which you would except even a dollar of wall funding for this president in order to reopen the government?



PELOSI: A dollar. One dollar? Yes, one dollar.


C. PAYNE: Now, to be fair, that was from the last shutdown fight.

But a dollar turned into $1.4 billion.

To The Washington Examiner's Byron York.

Listen, Byron, we know -- I think the media was going to call President Trump a loser on this, no matter which way it came out. But, of course, potentially avoiding another government shutdown, potentially moving the ball and getting this going, everyone says, you got to go to D.C. and compromise.

Are you -- do you think that this is a win or a loss? Where do you assess it?

BYRON YORK, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, I think you have to look at it two ways.

Politically, it's not a win. He wanted $5.7 billion. Looks like he's going to get around $1.4 billion. So that's not nearly as much as he wanted.

On the other hand, take a look at this as a policy matter. The president and the Trump administration have already -- are already in the process of replacing about 125 miles of fencing that is completely dilapidated, ineffective, very porous. They are going to replace it with this new slat -- steel slat design that the president talks about, which really will be a huge improvement in security for those 125 miles.

Now, with this deal, he has the apparent OK to build 55 additional miles on currently unfenced area...

C. PAYNE: Right.

YORK: ... in which -- again using the steel slat pedestrian fencing model, which will be pretty effective.

So it's not what he wanted. But it is an improvement. And I think that, if you talk to a number of experts on the border, there will say -- they will say there are these areas that, if you fence even a relatively small part, you can improve the situation.

C. PAYNE: Yes, I think almost any border or security expert would say that. And that's why some of the -- the folks even on the other side of the aisle have walls around their primary residence.

Do you feel, though, sometimes, Byron, that this whole thing vis-a-vis president, vis-a-vis the media, is that they're trying to push him, trying to goad him, they want him to -- to take to Twitter, to make perhaps rash decisions, instead of really pure reporting?

Is this sort of a deliberate attempt to try to push President Trump isn't some sort of tantrum?

YORK: Well, there was certainly a lot of mockery in the clips that you just played.

And that -- it just -- that goes with the territory. That is what coverage is of so much that President Trump does. I mean, you could make fun of Nancy Pelosi if you wanted to. I mean, she's just apparently on the verge of approving 55 miles of immorality.

So it seems to me that she's probably given up something here too, but here again, try to keep your eye on the ball. Look at this as a policy matter. Would it be better to build these 55 miles of new fencing or better not to?

C. PAYNE: Right.

YORK: The answer is, it would be better to do it.

C. PAYNE: Byron York, always the voice of reason. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.


YORK: Thank you, Charles.

C. PAYNE: Hey, what's really up with the President Trump and Russia?

The Senate Intelligence Committee chair says they turned up nothing. The Mueller report might not say anything. And so now House Democrats vow to keep the investigations going anyway.

How are their Republican counterparts going to react? Jim Jordan is next.


C. PAYNE: House Democrats already licking their chops for more investigations into any connections between President Trump and the Russians, and special counsel Robert Mueller hasn't even released his report yet.

Let's get reaction from Ohio Republican Congressman and member of the House Oversight Committee Jim Jordan.

Congressman, what's going on here?

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Well, I think -- I think the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman told us what we already knew.

There's not one bit of evidence of any collusion, conspiracy, coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. What they should be investigating, what we should be investigating, but Democrats don't want to do this, is all the -- all the terrible things that happened at the top levels of the FBI when they started this investigation in the first place in the summer and fall of 2016.

That's what we should be focused on. So, this is nothing new.

C. PAYNE: And maybe that might eventually happen.

But the feeling I'm getting, reading the last couple of days, particularly after the Senate came with through with this conclusion, is people are starting to feel like maybe this Mueller investigation is going to end with a whimper.


C. PAYNE: And the Democrats are ready to pick up the baton and start the race all over again.

And it just seems like an affront to the American public, who I think are just tired, the fatigue of investigations after investigations.

If it takes more than two years, and you come up with nothing, then what would Democrats be looking for?

JORDAN: Well, what -- remember what we just learned, Charles.

The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Schiff, was caught hanging out with Glenn Simpson in Colorado. There's a -- there actually is a photo of it. So here you got the guy who's been pushing all this, all these different investigations, talking about more investigations into President Trump.

And here's the guy who was hanging out with Glenn Simpson, who paid for the dossier, who hired Christopher Steele, who hired Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, that same guy, and, oh, by the way, the same chairman of the Intelligence Committee who called on Devin Nunes to step down two years ago.

So maybe, look, what we're seeing from the other side, and what we should be focused on, Charles, never forget this fact. Never forget this fact, Jim Comey fired, Andy McCabe, deputy director of the FBI, demoted and -- or excuse me -- fired, lied three times under oath.

Jim Baker, chief counsel, demoted, then left the FBI, currently under investigation by the Justice Department. And, of course, Peter Strzok, deputy head of counterintelligence, demoted, fired. And, Lisa Page, demoted and left.

The top five people. When have you ever seen that happen at any other federal agency? So maybe that's where we should put our focus and do a real investigation.

C. PAYNE: And I do want to let the audience know we reached out to Representative Schiff, and we haven't heard back just yet.

So, the point is, though, is that the Democrats are in charge of the House now. And they have been...

JORDAN: Unfortunately.

C. PAYNE: ... champing at the bit. And they have made -- for some of them, this was a sort of a campaign promise.

And for -- but I think, for most Americans, we're just a little bit worried about the idea of so much investigation, not enough legislation, to keep this country moving.

What do you say to your Democratic colleagues about this?

JORDAN: Quit -- quit -- stop the focus on stopping the president at all costs, and actually focus on helping the country.

Their -- their whole -- their whole -- we saw this on day one. Very first day of this Congress, what did we have? We had articles of impeachment filed the very first day. So they're already ready to move to that before the Mueller investigations is done, before -- so that's been their focus all along, stopping the president, not helping the country.

Let's -- let's focus on helping the country.

C. PAYNE: We got some news that is just coming in, the House voting to limit U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen.

The vote is being viewed by most as a rebuke of President Trump's alliance with Saudi Arabia.

JORDAN: I disagree.

C. PAYNE: Representative Jordan...


C. PAYNE: So how did you vote? How did you -- what was your vote?

JORDAN: No, I don't view that at all.

I just view this as a constitutional duty. We should be authorizing use of force. Remember what was in this resolution. It still allows intelligence-sharing to continue. That was an amendment offered by a Freedom Caucus member, Ken Buck from Colorado, that passed.

And, also, the most important amendment that was added to this legislation was the language that said...

C. PAYNE: But you did vote to -- to limit U.S. involvement in Yemen?

JORDAN: I voted for this.

But we added language in there that said, stop the BDS movement, the boycott, divestment and sanctions of the state of Israel. That was also added to this bill, as well as language that said, no -- stop this anti- Semitic stuff that we're seeing all over, condemning any of that.

So this was a -- I think a good piece of legislation that a number of conservatives supported, because we don't really think it's in any way should be viewed as a slap in the face.

C. PAYNE: Leading up to the vote, there was speculation that, if it was passed, and it now, of course, goes to the Senate, where people believe that it will also be approved, that President Trump would veto this.

Do you have any thoughts on perhaps President Trump vetoing this?

JORDAN: That's -- that's up to the president.

All I know is, there was good language, two good amendments that were added to this legislation, the language that said we -- there should be no room for any type of anti-Semitic behavior or language, the BDS -- anti-BDS language that was added, and the amendment from Congressman Buck that said we should still be able to share intelligence with our allies.

C. PAYNE: So, it's not a rebuke against President Trump and Saudi Arabia?

JORDAN: I don't -- I don't view it as that way. I view it as just a good piece of legislation that is consistent with the powers that the Congress is supposed to exercise.

C. PAYNE: I got less than a minute, but I got to ask you.

A lot of people are going to say, Republicans are complaining about all these investigations, and Representative Jordan at every turn keeps talking about Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

Is that a fair comparison?

JORDAN: No, what I'm talking about is what took place at the highest levels of the FBI.

And when have you ever seen five people who ran the Clinton investigation, who launched and ran the Russia investigation, when have you ever seen that happen, where they have been fired or demoted and left?

Two of them are currently under investigation by the Justice Department. We need to get to the bottom of that, because what they did, took one party's opposition research document, dressed it all up, and made it appear to be legitimate intelligence, so they could go spy on President Trump's campaign, that should never happen in the United States of America.

But it did.

C. PAYNE: Representative Jordan, let me squeeze one more in, less than a minute, hard break.

You want a continuing resolution for one week. Do you think you will get it? And what would that do?

JORDAN: I hope so. It allows us to continue to negotiate and get a better deal for building the border security wall.

I also think the president should do the national emergency declaration and move ahead on this as best we can to get this thing done for the American people.

C. PAYNE: Representative Jim Jordan, always appreciate it. Thank you.

JORDAN: You bet. Thank you.

C. PAYNE: Hey, ahead of Valentine's Day tomorrow, how much will you spend to show your love?

Well, there's a new survey that shows that men and women, well, they may have different ideas.



UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Apu, you got to help me. I need a Valentine's gift for my wife.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Perhaps this might be appropriate?

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Yes! You saved my life. How much?

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: One hundred dollars.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: What? That's highway robbery. I won't pay it.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Oh, I think you will.






C. PAYNE: Well, we have all been there.

And a new survey from Bankrate reveals that, when it comes to Valentine's Day, men plan to spend an average of $339 on their partner, while women expect to spend, on average, about $64.

So what's the deal?

Tweet us @TeamCavuto or with your thoughts.

Joining me now on whether -- well, how they feel about it, Internet radio host Mike Gunzelman and FOX News contributor Kat Timpf.

Kat, 64 bucks, what's the deal?

KATHERINE TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: OK, first of all, I think that 300 and whatever dollars is a ridiculous amount of money to be spending on someone on Valentine's Day.

Where are these dudes? Where are you? No one has ever spent that much money on me.


TIMPF: Right.

GUNZELMAN: Not right next to you. I can tell you that much.

TIMPF: However, it's also ridiculous for men to be complaining, because you save so much money just by being a man.

Like, what does your haircut -- your haircut costs like $10?


C. PAYNE: I cut my own, too.

TIMPF: Do you know how much these hair extensions cost? They're not cheap.

Do you know how much it costs to get your nails done? It's not cheap. You have to start buying lip gloss in like middle school. It adds up.

So it's ridiculous, yes, but men should not complain.

C. PAYNE: Mike?

GUNZELMAN: Well, first of all, Valentine's Day is the most overrated holiday. It is the absolute worst.

It's becoming like St. Patrick's Day and like New Year's Eve. It's for amateurs. So don't go out on Valentine's Day. They purposely raise all the prices, drink prices, everything.

It is a disaster. Or I'm just bitter because I'm single all the time.



C. PAYNE: And, Kat, I don't know if you noticed, but you have caught the bear's attention.

TIMPF: Yes. Hey, how it's going?


C. PAYNE: Now, if you got this, I mean, no matter what it costs, wouldn't it be worth it?

Look, this bear is...

TIMPF: Where would I put that in my apartment? I live in New York City.

C. PAYNE: I think you take it with you.

TIMPF: I live in New York City.

C. PAYNE: You got through the POV line, whatever that thing is. Look at it. Have you ever seen a bear that animated?

GUNZELMAN: If you're spending over $300, that's like a car payment.

You are -- you're drunk. You have issues.

C. PAYNE: You live in Manhattan. OK? I mean, it costs $400 a month to park your car.

GUNZELMAN: I mean, $300 for Valentine's Day is insane. I don't know where these people are existing.

TIMPF: Yes, where are these dudes?

GUNZELMAN: But they need to get a life. Otherwise, they are suckers, I'm sorry to tell you.

C. PAYNE: Well, OK, does this change the dynamics? It also includes dinner. So you're talking about a gift, a nice animated bear, moves around like this, listens to you, never complains. Right?


C. PAYNE: So you got that, dinner, and maybe a box of chocolates.

TIMPF: But what are they eating for dinner, chunks of solid gold? I don't understand.

GUNZELMAN: Also, if you take a girl out to dinner, that should be it, the drink, et cetera. You don't have to get them anything in addition to that.

Like, even -- don't take them out. Just cook at home. Cook at home and cuddle. That's what girls like.

C. PAYNE: Mike, if you exchange gifts with your girlfriend, and your gift costs 400 bucks and hers costs $60, what would you say?

GUNZELMAN: I'm walking out.

C. PAYNE: You are?

GUNZELMAN: I'm walking yes, yes. You got to reciprocate in some way.


C. PAYNE: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Oh, it broke. Hold on one second. What was it anyway? A key chain.


GUNZELMAN: I'm immediately calling my guys, yes, my buddies, yes.

TIMPF: I don't spend any money on Valentine's Day.

C. PAYNE: America is watching, and they believe that young adults in Manhattan are the most jaded, unromantic people in the world.

TIMPF: That's...

C. PAYNE: Can we change -- we have less than a minute to change that perception.

TIMPF: Unfortunately, I don't think I'm the correct messenger for that.


TIMPF: If you haven't been listening to the things I have been saying, I am in fact also single, have been single for quite some time.

And last Valentine's Day, I spent eating cookies.

C. PAYNE: I notice the bear moved a little closer to you when you say you were single.

GUNZELMAN: He got real excited.

TIMPF: So, I got that going for me.


TIMPF: That's great. Things are looking up.

GUNZELMAN: Well, this is the most romantic thing that I have done in the last five years. Here you go.

TIMPF: Oh, thanks, Gunz.

This isn't his to give.


C. PAYNE: All right, thanks a lot.

Trying to get more romantic, yes. Nothing wrong with it.

Hey, join me, by the way, on Fox Business Network tomorrow. I will be on at -- I will be on at 2:00, making you money. This market is rocking.

I hope you have been making some money. If not, it means you haven't been watching. Well, try to tune in tomorrow. Dow up 117 points.

Now here's "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.