Mexico's ambassador on the impact of US troops on the border

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," April 5, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: 'The Story' hosted by my friend, Martha MacCallum, starts right now up in New York. Martha, I'll tell you what, there was nothing like it.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: I can tell. I've never seen such a happy Bret there as I'm seeing right now. I'm glad you got in at often times. Those are great pictures. Thank you, Bret.

So, breaking tonight, President Trump calling up to 4,000 members of our national guard to the border to help keep the peace along that southern line. He is also extending a bit of an olive branch to Mexican leaders offering some concessions on NAFTA, but a fierce ultimatum is delivered with it. If Mexico wants to keep that lucrative trade deal intact, the United States will build the wall with some help from our military, he said, and he would like the help of Mexico as well. As you know, the president also hearkens back to his first campaign statement today and basically doubled down. He's now facing the threat of losing NAFTA. They are in Mexico -- from the leaders of Mexico and Canada. They once threatened to walk out of NAFTA negotiations, but the whole thing is starting to sound a bit different this evening. So, joining me now is Geronimo Gutierrez, Mexico's Ambassador to the United States. Ambassador, thank you very much for being here. It's good to have you with us tonight.

GERONIMO GUTIERREZ, AMBASSADOR OF MEXICO TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Martha, very much. It's my pleasure to be with you this evening.

MACCALLUM: Well, we do appreciate it. There's certainly a lot going on. I know that when you first got the news that the president was considering amassing National Guard troops at the border with your country, you said that you were going to need some clarity on that, have you gotten it?

GUTIERREZ: I think we've gotten some clarity, we've spoken with Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Nielsen. We've gotten some clarity on that. The central point, Martha, is that we do believe that it is in the interest of both nations to have secure borders. We don't always agree on how to achieve that objective, but we do believe that our cooperation is valuable and we want to keep it going so long as it is respectful and it works for both sides.

MACCALLUM: So, what's the impact of having National Guard troops on the border with our relationship of Mexico, which has had some difficulties in recent months? President Pena Nieto canceled the trip to Washington based on what's reported to be a tough conversation with our president.

GUTIERREZ: Well, this is not the first time that the National Guard has been at the border. It's not something that we welcome. We understand the president's objective of securing borders and we are and favors of securing borders, but we believe that we can achieve a lot through cooperation. And in fact, we kept very good cooperation with the different security agencies on the U.S., both on immigration and trafficking drugs, and basically all of organized crime.

MACCALLUM: The president tweeted a couple days ago, Mexico is doing very little, if not nothing, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their southern border and then into the United States. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. We need a wall. And I know today he said that he was appreciative that the caravans have been disbanded. So, it looks like that rhetoric has cooled a little bit. Can you explain to us what you did to disband that caravan and where exactly those people went?

GUTIERREZ: Well, first of all, I would like to differ from the president's position in the sense that Mexico does do a lot to have a secure, legal, safe, and orderly migration. We're all for that. If you look at some of the numbers of people from Central American countries that we have repatriated, you will get a completely different story. In the case of the caravan, I think it's important to point out that the Mexican authorities have proceeded according with our own immigration policies. The so-called 'caravan', which is not a new event has pretty much concluded or will be concluding any time now. Some of its members by their own will have decided to finish the caravan and again, Mexican authorities have been in contact with the U.S. for this purpose. I think that the caravan does call the attention to an important point which is that we must work better together to coordinate our migration and our asylum policies. And just last week or a few weeks ago, Secretary Nielsen visited Mexico and we worked precisely on those sorts of issues.

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of the process that, you know, where people come through the southern border -- you know, the accusation against some Mexican officials is that they're helping them to get across the United States border, that there's a process that funnels those people through Mexico and into the United States. Are you saying that, that -- is that policy going to change?

GUTIERREZ: That is clearly not the case. Mexico does not advocate nor promote undocumented immigration by our nationals or from any other country. We do believe that migration policies should be humane and that's what we're doing. And at the same time, as it happens with any demonstration in Mexico, public officials provide security for the people that are involved and for both parties, and that's precisely what we need in this occasion.

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of the future of NAFTA, the president has said, we'll get it done right or we will terminate the agreement between the United States and Mexico. There's also an indication tonight, it looked like an agreement was coming together and that it might be announced next week in Peru. But now, the president seems to be backing off of that as well saying, basically, well, we'll see and we're going to give the time it needs. What's your understanding on that, sir?

GUTIERREZ: Well, both sides, Martha, are attacking difficult issues. NAFTA is 25-years-old. We do agree that it can be improved, updated, modernized, but we believe that it has been very beneficial for the two countries. Mexico is interested in having North America remain a very competitive region. We are certainly -- share the view that we must do better to bring more jobs into North America, and that's the intent of the teams that are negotiating. There are clearly some tough issues to tackle, but the latest reports do show progress. We have made ground on NAFTA. A deal needs to be a deal for all the parties in order to work, and that's what we're precisely trying to accomplish. That is precisely the message that President Pena Nieto has made very clear today. And I hope we do get a chance to prove that because that would be in the interest of the United States as much as in Mexico. A successful Mexico is as much in the interest of the United States as a successful United States is in the interest of Mexico and that is precisely what we're trying to accomplish with NAFTA.

MACCALLUM: So, there are some word today that there was some concession made on autos to Mexico. Is that your understanding? Do you feel like the White House has given some ground on that issue?

GUTIERREZ: Well, I just -- you know, I've seen many negotiation, every side is going to have to compromise on some aspects. But the important thing is that in the end, we achieve a result that is successful for the three parties. We want and we believe it's perfectly doable to get a win- win-win solution in NAFTA. And we do believe that the next 30-40 days are crucial, and that is precisely again what the teams are focusing just as we speak now.

MACCALLUM: All right. In terms of a visit from your president, do you see that happening anytime soon? A visit to the United States?

GUTIERREZ: Well, the relationship with the United States is very important for Mexico, there's no doubt about it. But I think both sides believe that we should have really optimum conditions when our presidents meet. We're working -- teams on both sides are working for that. I would certainly not discard the fact that the possibility that they will meet in the future, but I think it's intelligent and it's just wise to make sure that their teams have really paved the way for a successful meeting and that's what we're working on right now.

MACCALLUM: Will Mexico ever pay for part of the wall as any part of a NAFTA agreement, sir?

GUTIERREZ: Martha, I think that issue has been settled and the short answer is no.

MACCALLUM: Ambassador Gutierrez, thank you very much, sir. Good to see you tonight. All the best.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you.

MACCALLUM: It's our pleasure. So, coming up next, Catherine Herridge, with breaking news on two big headlines tonight on newly discovered anti- Trump bias at the FBI. Sources now telling Fox that there were actually multiple infractions that led to the firing of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Plus, those new text messages that have surfaced between Agents Strzok and Page. And new allegations that former CIA Director John Brennan used the dossier to get Harry Reid on board in promoting the Russia investigation. Journalist and Author, Michael Isikoff, with the inside story from his new book after the break.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: The dossier wasn't used at all -- the analysis and assessment. And Jim Comey, presented it separately. So, you know, again, it wasn't until --



MACCALLUM: A lot of big stories breaking tonight on the investigation into the anti-Trump bias inside the FBI as evidence by some of what has surfaced. There's new details on why the FBI's Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired. Also, we have uncovered some new text messages between Agents Strzok and Page that are revealing as well. Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge live in Washington with the breaking reporting on this tonight that she has uncovered. Hi, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thanks, Martha, and good evening. Republicans in the house complain they are getting records, but important facts and names are blacked out. In this letter to the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Congressman Mark Meadows and Congressman Jim Jordan who sit on the House Government Oversight Committee have more information about an exchange between FBI employees about who and what gets redacted before records are sent to the Hill. FBI employee one, 'Are you sure you want me to keep you redacted for the congressional production?' FBI employee two responds, 'Is that an option?' FBI employee one adds, 'Smiley face emoji, you will be redacted.'

In a separate development, text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Lawyer Lisa Page indicate that Strzok traveled to London, England in early August 2016 to interview a key witness just days after the FBI opened an investigation into alleged contact between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. The two FBI officials appeared to debate amongst themselves about what they will share with their superiors of the Justice Department when Strzok returns to Washington, D.C. Strzok writes, "I think we need to consider the lines of what we disclosed to DOJ. For example, the land stipulation notes, we will not disclose."

We also learned today more information about the firing last month of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. An investigative source tells Fox News that there were three violations of the FBI's ethics code first uncovered by the Justice Department inspector general, and then backed up by the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility. They include 'lack of candor under oath', 'lack of candor not under oath', as well as the 'improper disclosure of nonpublic information to the media' -- in this case, it was about the existence of the FBI Clinton Foundation investigation. In a statement to Fox News late today: McCain's attorney accused lawmakers on the Hill of selective leaks designed to discredit his client and pit McCabe against his old boss, Director James Comey.

MACCALLUM: Catherine, thank you very much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: Also developing tonight, an explosive new book exposing former CIA chief, John Brennan's role in the early stages of the Russia investigation. The book: 'Russian Roulette' says then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid thought that Brennan had 'an ulterior motive.' But during a congressional hearing last year, Brennan claimed under oath that the CIA didn't use information from the dossier to move the investigation forward. Watch this.


REP. TREY GOWDY, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: Do you know if the bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings?


GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?



BRENNAN: Because we -- it wasn't part of the purpose intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.


MACCALLUM: Here now, Michael Isikoff, the co-author of that New York Times' number one best-selling book: 'Russian Roulette'. He also gave the chief -- he's also the chief investigative correspondent at Yahoo News. Hence, we have to cover the story extensively. Michael, good evening. Good to have you back on the story. Thanks for being here.


MACCALLUM: So, you know, let's unravel this a bit. So, it appears according to your book that John Brennan contacted Harry Reid. And then, Harry Reid, wrote a letter in August of 2016 after the DNC convention, saying evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. And you also say that Reid had the impression that Brennan had ulterior motive. He concluded the CIA believed that the public needed to know about the Russian operation including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.

ISIKOFF: Exactly. Well, first of all, you know, I love the fact that his people dig into the book. People on all sides find material that supports their case or that they didn't know and they think is relevant, and this is probably an example. But yes, Harry Reid wrote a letter to James Comey -- he was trying to get Comey to investigate what he believed where these connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians. He, at this point, has been briefed by Brennan. Now, that briefing by Brennan was not just for Harry Reid, he was briefing all the congressional leaders at that point. The gang of eight, the intelligence community, the intelligence committee chiefs and the leaders of the Senate and the house. Their Reid briefing was significant because Reid acts on it and he believes that Brennan is trying to get him to prod Comey to investigate. Now, you can look at that as anti-Trump bias, there's no question that Harry Reid is a fierce partisan and was a supporter of Hillary Clinton. But there's also - - there were legitimate concerns within the CIA, the FBI, and anybody who's getting these briefings about the prospect that Kremlin cutouts were trying to influence and insinuate themselves in a major American presidential campaign. And that's a legitimate counterintelligence concern.

MACCALLUM: OK. But all that circles back to the question of what the evidence was and what they were basing that on, and whether or not John Brennan had any sort of political motivation to say to Harry Reid, hey, I think you better go over there and bug Jim Comey about this because we really want this to be lit up. We want stories to be written about it, we want congressional members to be fired up about it. On October 30th, Reid writes to Comey, it has 'become clear that you possessed explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government'. I mean, what is that explosive information? I mean, what we know about the Carter Page thing that led nowhere and now we know that there's, you know, after a year of investigating this, Robert Mueller himself said there's no criminal target for President Trump. So, what explosive information was Harry Reid talking about, Michael?

ISIKOFF: Well, remember, remember, Martha, that in July, the FBI opens up a counterintelligence investigation. And it is multifaceted. It involves Carter Page, it involved George Papadopoulos, it involves Michael Flynn. So, they are seeing all this potential evidence. They don't know the answer yet. You know, the investigations --

MACCALLUM: Precisely. They don't know the answer yet, so why are they pumping it through Congress and saying please make a big stink about this on October 30th right before the election?

ISIKOFF: That's Harry Reid.

MACCALLUM: John Brennan, in your book. You say John Brennan was getting in to do it.

ISIKOFF: Hold on, let's parse this correctly. John Brennan was trying to get -- was briefing Harry Reid. Harry Reid getting the briefing in October 30, does write that letter. Remember, James Comey has just written his letter saying that the FBI is reopening the investigation into the Clinton e-mail investigation.

MACCALLUM: Reid also had the impression that Brennan had an ulterior motive, that he concluded that the CIA chief believed that the public needed to know there's an ongoing investigation that has no evidentiary finding that in conclusive yet, that they needed to know about the Russia operation and this is right before the election.

ISIKOFF: Well, that was the letter in August, and yes, Harry Reid did want it out that the FBI was investigating. He wanted an FBI investigation. There's no question about that. He's a partisan. He wants it known to the public that the Republican presidential campaign is being looked at by the FBI, which it was. That was -- you know, many people --

MACCALLUM: But you wouldn't have that information if John Brennan hadn't brought it to him. And he claimed that he thought he had an ulterior motive and then he went and did exactly what John Brennan's ulterior motive was, correct?

ISIKOFF: Right, right, right. Well, there's something along those lines, sure.

MACCALLUM: It's fascinating. No, it's fascinating.

ISIKOFF: There's a lot of details.

MACCALLUM: And you say there are lots of agenda here.

ISIKOFF: Yes, there are.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Michael, good to see you.

ISIKOFF: OK, sure. Anytime.

MACCALLUM: We'll see you next time. Good to see you. All right. Coming up tonight, as tens of thousands of teachers across the -- at least two states -- protested for the fourth day, kids are out of school now. I think we're on the second week. They want better pay and more funding for their schools. We're going to talk more to the teachers about why this movement matters. Plus, we'll talk to the governor of Oklahoma and get her side of the story as well. Also, tonight, as Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg heads to Capitol Hill to get grilled which he does not like to do. He doesn't like to answer questions in the public, but he will do that on the breach that impacted nearly 100 million Facebook users across the country. Bill Bennett has been in many of those hearings and he says the Silicon Valley billionaire better buckle up.



MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER, FACEBOOK: We didn't take a broad enough view of what our responsibility is and that was a huge mistake. It was my mistake.


MACCALLUM: Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg, taking the blame for the company's massive data scandal. The company now admitting that Cambridge Analytica used the personal information of some 87 million users in order to target those individuals for political purposes. This, Zuckerberg has - - this week, he will head to Capitol Hill next week, excuse me, as lawmakers demand stronger regulations for the social media site. They're closing in. Joining me now, Bill Bennett, Host of 'The Bill Bennett' podcast and a Fox News contributor. He's been at a few of these hearings on the Hill; I think a hundred and something. So, Bill, good evening to you. What can Mark Zuckerberg expect next week?

BILL BENNETT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND HOST OF THE BILL BENNETT PODCAST: What should he expect? He should expect a lot of fire. As a licensed philosopher, I can tell you that he should not expect a dispassionate search for truth, but he should conduct himself as if it is a dispassionate search for truth. He's going to get fire on both sides. When I testified, at least I have the advantage usually of Republicans supporting what I had to say while Democrats attacked. I think Mark Zuckerberg is going to be attacked from both sides. But I think, I think they can get through it. And I have to tell you, I think the last couple of weeks, he and his colleagues have made some serious efforts. Nevertheless, this was a huge mistake, as he says. He takes responsibility for it and he would be best advised to take responsibility for it at the hearing. Let me say as I told your staff, Martha, just I think I need to tell you. He reached out to me for advice on education last year, we had a videoconference. He asked me to visit. I visited one of the schools that he and his wife are sponsoring and advised him on education policy and his colleagues, though, I'm not doing that right now.

MACCALLUM: You know, the other side of this is this. And I'm curious what conservatives are going to want to know about from him. But you know, Congress loves to get corporate executives, you know, behind that table and berate them and tell them that they need to be more regulated, right? This is the other side of the coin, anybody who's ever searched for, you know, a hotel or a pair of shoes, or a basketball hoop, knows that the second that you do that, they've got your number. They know exactly what to send to you. You sign off when you start posting pictures and looking stuff up online. You're giving up some of your privacy. We've talked about this for a decade, and now it seems like everybody is shocked that that's actually what happened.

BENNETT: No, I know, at the little Casa Blanca, isn't it? No, one of my sons said to me: dad, you know, you're 74 and even you know that you're giving up some of your privacy when you do this. So, I'll admit that, yes, I know. So, why don't millennials? Why doesn't everybody else? This isn't for free. Obviously, you can tell. And if you pay any attention to what's coming in, you see it's being sorted in certain ways. But look, this is a huge thing. Two billion users, Martha. This is a technology that's amazing. Lots of people use it for a very sad and positive purposes. My wife uses Facebook to communicate with friends and family, share pictures, people do this all the time, but people cannot be naive about it. We all need continuing education, if you will, on what is going on in this process.

MACCALLUM: But don't you think that some of this comes from the fact -- you know, that there was infringement of Facebook and --

BENNETT: Say it again.

MACCALLUM: Don't you think that some of this send from the fact that there's this idea that infringement of some of these sites lead to the election of Donald Trump?

BENNETT: Yes, I think this is implausible that it led to the election of Donald Trump, but this is what may animate a lot of the liberals and democrats. If you look at the extra money spend, as I've read it, that was spent and supported those adds. It's pretty small compared that went into the campaigns. In the other hands, Republicans say -- thinks this is, you know, this is a liberal group. And I have to tell you, I think it is a liberal group. I think it tilts to the left. But, there are a lot of people there who know they tilt to the left, and they're trying to, you know, adjust on that. At least, take (INAUDIBLE).

But, look, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is technology that can be used for great social good. A little bit like the invention of fire here. It is used, it is consequential. I hope it's a serious hearing. And I have a feeling that he is going to accept responsibility. I've found him to be a humble guy who actually listens. He's got two ears and one mouth and uses them in those proportions. He listened, I thought, very carefully to me and other people, and I was impressed by it. But he's going to get two ear-full, at least, from that hearing. I just hope some constructive things come out of it, maybe regulation. And they've admitted that -- maybe that's what should happen.


BENNETT: But, let's be constructive on this one.

MACCALLUM: Bill, thank you, always good to see you. Bill Bennett, thanks for joining us.

BENNETT: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up, Oklahoma teachers protesting for better funding, higher salaries, and there governor said this.


MARY FALLIN, R-OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR: Teachers want more. It's kind of like having a teenage kid that wants a better car.


MACCALLUM: Oh, the teachers did not like that. Oklahoma teacher, Zach Murray, and Governor Mary Fallin, join me with both sides of this story coming up, next. Plus, President Trump campaigned on draining the swamp in Washington, now a new mini-documentary gives us a behind-the-scenes look that I think will turn your stomach, but stick around for it.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: As soon as you want something, they've got you. As soon as you want something, you now become part of the swamp.



MACCALLUM: Teachers across the nation who are walking out in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma. Kids home for the fifth day now in Oklahoma, as teachers fight for raises of $10,000 for themselves and $200 million in school funding. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin offered $6,100 as -- you know, as her side of that bargaining arrangement, and $50 million in an increased in funds. Teachers say that is not enough. The Republican governor has also faced some backlash for this.


MARY FALLIN, R, OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR: Teachers want more. It's kind of like having a teenage kid that wants a better car.


MACCALLUM: Zach Murray is a high school science teacher in Oklahoma, who works part-time to supplement his income and has been taking part in these protests. Zach, good to have you here. I guess the first question, what do you think of Mary Fallin's teenage analogy?

ZACH MURRAY, OKLAHOMA TEACHER: Well, I'm a bit disappointed in it. The comment implies that, you know, a teenager wanting a car is a luxury and that education, as a result with that analogy, is a luxury. And education, excuse me, should be a necessity.

MACCALLUM: It could be. And she's going to speak for herself in a moment. But she did offered $6,100 raise, and you guys are pushing for $10,000, and so the suggestion is that, you know, the offer isn't good enough, you want something better.

MURRAY: Well, we appreciate the raise. And, actually, the $10,000 is over three years. What we're pushing for now is increased funding for our schools that would go towards.

MACCALLUM: So, you're satisfied with the 6,100, you're OK with that?

MURRAY: Yes, I am personally. And every teacher I've talked to is OK at this point we the 6,100. We want more funding for our schools.


MURRAY: We have schools that have textbooks that are out of date. Some of them still have George W. Bush as the current president. We have some schools who have textbooks that are falling apart, desks are falling apart, schools that are, essentially, not safe to work in. They've got mold issues. We've got a teacher in Mannford who has -- her students have to wear their coats in class because they can't turn the heat up high enough.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, that's terrible.

MURRAY: They have to have half the lights off. So, we don't have the funding in our classrooms to be effective instructors.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's understandable. You know, you must wonder where all the money goes, don't you? You know, you pay taxes, everybody pays taxes across the state. In most cases, they don't go down, they go up over the years. So, you just have to wonder why things used to be better in schools and now it's such a mess.

MURRAY: Well, in Oklahoma, we've seen a cut to education over the last ten years of $200 million, and that's what we're asking for back. But it's also in Oklahoma, easier to cut taxes than it is to raise taxes. The plan passed last week by our legislator is the first increased in taxes in almost 30 years. So, we've actually had our state revenue go down rather than go up.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, Zach, what would you say to Mary Fallin who is up next? You know, what's your message to the governor? You have the platform right now.

MURRAY: My message would be to fund our school. The teachers -- we're content with the pay raise at this point, but we need funding for our school, so that we can keep our support personnel, so we can have appropriate resources, so we can do our jobs effectively. I can't teach my students if they don't have the resources they need to be successful.

MACCALLUM: What place do you say you teach?

MURRAY: I teach high school. High school biology.

MACCALLUM: God bless you. Good for you. I was terrible at biology. But, anyway, I should have you for teacher. Zach, thank you. It sounds like your requests are reasonable and we're glad to have you with us tonight. Thanks for being here.

MURRAY: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, here now with her response, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin. Governor, welcome. Good to have you with us tonight.


MACCALLUM: You know, where's the funding going? Where's the money going, and why do kids have to sit with coats on in their classrooms, and, you know, why do they have books that say George W. Bush is still the president?

FALLIN: Well, look, we passed the largest increase in educational funding ever in Oklahoma's history, a 19 percent increase in the total budget for educational loans, which is over 50 percent of the state budget, and we gave our teachers a 15 to 18 percent pay increase. And if you look at the seven states, including Oklahoma, around our state, we are now -- we've gone for being seventh to now second in the region in the highest teacher pay. Plus, we've had really good benefits for health care and retirement, and our retirement system is in great shape for our teachers, which can't be said in other states. And then, we allocated an extra $50 million, $33 million for new textbooks, and $17 million on top of that for whatever the schools want to use it for that are going to our state funding formula.

The complaint has been, it's not enough, we want more. It was $480 million. And as the teacher just said, we're pushing all our teachers -- we don't mind them coming to the capital. I think it's important that they come to capital and talk to their legislators. I wish they'd been there a lot earlier over the last three years I've tried to get a pay raise. But, the fact of the matter is, this has been going on for a long period of time. Decades upon decades upon decades that we've had trouble with underfunding of our teacher's salaries. And, frankly, our economy has grown so much we have 50,000 more students in our school system over the last ten years because new jobs were re-created. So, yes, we do need some more funding for classrooms, but that's also an abhor property tax issue with the local school board, to the local voters who decide those things. It's a priority decision upon what you've paid for.

MACCALLUM: With all the growth that you've seen in Oklahoma, you just pointed out, the tax revenue base should be going up, right? Is your tax revenue base going up?

FALLIN: It is now.


FALLIN: But we've been through a five-year downturn with the energy sector, when the price of oil.


FALLIN: $26 a barrel. It's been a tough go. But now we're slowly, but surely, climbing out of that. And so, we've did see a great need. We've tried to get this hurdle past. And, the gentleman mentioned, the teacher mentioned that we finally got some revenue increases to be able to pay for this. We have a law in Oklahoma that is actually constitutional amendment that says we have to have 75 percent of all of our legislative voters -- legislative members, excuse me, to vote on increasing any type of revenue. So, it's been a hard lift. And, you know, my comment was, look, we know it's not enough, but it's a giant step forward. It's a $6,100 average increase in teacher pay. For our teachers it's $50 million new dollars going into textbooks and also into the state. Is it everything that they wanted? No. We know they want more, but it's what we can do for right now, and I think it's a giant step forward.

MACCALLUM: I think they know people just pay -- they pay an enormous amount in taxes, and it's tough to figure out why your kids don't have a decent textbook, you know, when you live in a nice place like Oklahoma, and they wonder where that money goes, where it disappears into bureaucracies and, you know, why it doesn't go where it needs to go. So, it sounds like you're trying to get it there, and I hope you guys can, you know, work this out because I'm sure you want the kids to go back to school and I'm sure the parents want them to go back to school.

FALLIN: They do, absolutely. They do need to go back to school. April is the testing month. And we've had some classes that were canceled this week and ACT tests were missed, and we've had to reschedule those types of things. And science test. But I think teachers do want to go back to classrooms. I've met with a lot of teachers this week. There's some today, and they tell me, you know, we appreciate the pay raise, we appreciate more funding, we want more, we want to get back to the classroom. We want to teach.

MACCALLUM: Governor, thank you. I've sure they don't mind missing their ACT's, but, you know, they don't go away. They have to take it at some point. Good to see you. Thank you very much, Governor Fallin from Oklahoma.

So, they may have gone to Washington with hopes of, you know, Mr. Smith and draining the swamp, but some of these brand-new congressmen who let some cameras follow them around say, wow, this is not what we signed up for.


REP. ROD BLUM, R—IOWA: You said it's only $7 billion, can we move on? Where I come from, Iowa, we ran our entire state budget to $7 million in a year. I said that's a lot of money. That's a lot of money where we come from. And guess what we did? We moved on.


MACCALLUM: They've moved on and he spent the $7 billion because there wasn't time to talk about it. Former congressman, Jason Chaffetz, knows a thing or two about this situation. We're going to show you this piece and we'll talk to Jason when we come back.


MACCALLUM: All right. So, perhaps from the very first time, a group of lawmakers is giving Americans an all-access pass to what life is really like on Capitol Hill. The four congressmen arrived in Washington, they have big hopes, they're going to drain the swamp, and instead, they have found that that is a whole lot tougher than they realized. Watch this.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The swamp is geographically Washington, D.C. But, in a metaphysical sense, it's just a place where values change.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not a career politician and I don't want to be a career politician. I think one of the problems in this town, in the swamp, is there's too many damn career politicians.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I think we have a bipartisan bankruptcy going on. I think both parties are engaged in a quiet deal that we will support our base, and if it leads to bankruptcy, OK, and you will support your base and if it leads to bankruptcy, OK, because both parties are more interested in supporting their special interest groups and looking the other way when the other parties supports the special interest group.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It was a good three day view. We hear from about 7:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You know, I joke that I don't think I've ever worked so hard to accomplish so little. But if you stop working, you can be -- assured you won't accomplish anything.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I was with the first pledge, which means that leadership comes up to you and asks you how you're going to vote on this. And he said, Ken, are you going to vote for the budget? And I said, no, I'm not going to vote for the budget. And he says, why aren't you going to vote for the budget? And I said, because it doesn't balance. He says it balances in ten years. And I said how long have you been here? He said I've been here 12 years. I've said, 10 years ago did they tell you it's going to balance? He looks at me and he says, you're right, it never balances. That's leadership. That's leadership's representative telling me it never balances.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Here the incentives are as backwards, upside down. There's no incentive to save money here. In the private sector, I think the incentive for the most part do not -- very good. Here, there's not incentive to save money. There's an incentive to spend money. There's not an incentive to do what you believe in, necessarily, or what you believe to be correct. There is an incentive to get to yes, to be on the team. Now, why do you want to be on the team while you're here? Well, because that's going to help you do what? Win reelection. It's going to help you run for governor. It's going to help you run for the United States senate. It's going to help you be the next speaker of the house. Those to me are not the correct incentives, because nowhere in what I just said is out of the word, the people. The incentive should be all about the people we represent. And more days than not, I think everybody's representatives in Washington, D.C. other than we the people.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: First day, I'm a small business guy, I understand budgets. I've got an MBA. I get numbers. We're sitting there discussing one of the line items in the budget. Sitting right to my right, it wasn't Ken, he raise his hand and Chairman Price recognize him and he says -- he says, chairman, he look up at the clock and he says, you know, we can't be here all day, especially debating this line item. He says it's only $7 billion, can we move on? My first day here. And it's one of those things where I raised my hand, Price recognize me and I said, I'm new here. I don't understand Washington ways. I'm a freshman. It's my first day on the budget committee. I'm a small business guy. But where I come from, Iowa, we run our entire state budget to $7 million on that in a year. I said that's a lot of money. That's a lot of money where we come from. And, guess what we did? We moved on. We moved on.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: So, we both vote following our principles, what's best for the country, et cetera. And then, you get a lot of this team language. You've got to do what's right for the team, whatever. I said, well, I'm fine with being on a team, but tell me when the team practices, right? Where does the team meet?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Whatever percentages of people are here to perpetuate opportunity and freedom and the ability of individuals to make choices from themselves, versus the number of people who are here to perpetuate their name, to be important, or to be with C-list celebrities, or to have people called them, sir, or ma'am, or madam, or Mr. Congressman, it's all stupid.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It's interesting dynamic in this town. As soon as you want something, they've got you. As soon as you want something, you now become part of the swamp. They all wanted chairmanship, OK. Well, then you've got to play by the rules they want. So, you'll be on a eight committee, now you've got to play the game by the rules that they set. As soon as you want something that they have, they've got you.


MACCALLUM: It was one of the scary movies I've seen for a long time. Jason Chaffetz served as house oversight committee chairman and is now Fox News contributor. Is that partly why you left?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I really honestly believe you get in and serve and you get out. And I started to sour. And I realized it wasn't healthy for me and it wasn't healthy for my family. And, you know, I was a chairman and everybody looked at me and said you can't leave here, you're a chairman. And, I'm like, oh, yeah. But there's more important things in life and I've got to get a better balance in life. And this is an important show. A lot of things they say are absolutely spot- on. When I first got there, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know, people listen to that. They look at you, they look at Trey Gowdy, they say, like, you know, people need to stick around. So, there's never going to be any fixing any of this. It's all about everybody being on the team. And, like, whether you're Republican or Democrat, let's just all get reelected, and we can stay in our apartments in Washington, you know, have a nice life, and we won't to, actually, ever get anything done. We can just, sort of, keep each other here.

CHAFFETZ: So, look at the people -- like, I've slept in a cot in my office. I didn't get a nice place. But that place shouldn't just be for millionaires and billionaires to go ahead and run it. It is a tough life. Almost all of them, they work hard. It's sort of a third. You've got a third of the people there that really can't figure out what in the world they're doing there. You've got another third that's just about the power. And then you've got another third who I really think they put their heart and soul into it. Like a Tim Scott.


MACCALLUM: So there're good people there, absolutely. We've had them on this set. You've just name two of them. But, you know, you just feel like it's cyclical, but there is no hope, there is no ability to drain the swamp. You know, President Trump came in saying that was what he was going to do. The swamp, you know, just watch as presidents come and go, I guess.

CHAFFETZ: Well, some of the important things did happen. We did get rid of earmarks. When I first got there, I had the subcommittee chairman on appropriations say, hey, listen, you did this on the floor of the house. He said, listen, you're a freshman, we want to help you out. Come up with some earmarks, keep it under $10 billion, and I'll make sure that we get that in the appropriations bills so you can get reelected. I'm thinking, oh, my gosh.

MACCALLUM: So, he was trying to get coop you, though. He wanted you to also do what he wanted, right? They're trying to get you on the team.

CHAFFETZ: And then, he wanted to just, kind of, reel me in and set that hook, so that they had something on me. And I remember Boehner going through the back room and he was trying to get votes. And he looked at me and he said, ah, forget it. Because he knew that, you know, there's certain people that's just weren't going to be cooped like that. But, you watch that movie, people have this fear of losing. And it's, usually, they come to you in the 11th hour and they say, well, are you on the team are you not on the team? And that fear of losing as the film points out really is a driving factor.

MACCALLUM: The hours that you've talked about working, and I'm not -- I'm sure they are working a lot of those hours. How many of those hours are spent fund-raising?

CHAFFETZ: You know I have a cheaper rate. But you've got people that have to raise $5 and $6 million, maximum contribution is $2,700, and you've got to run all over the country to do it.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Nice to see you. Quick break. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: So, you want to be here tomorrow night because we're going to share my exclusive interview with the cousin of Mary Jo Kopechne, who is speaking to us exclusively on 'The Story' about her portrayal in the brand new movie, Chappaquiddick. And that's our story for tonight. We'll see you back here tomorrow. Tucker is up next.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.