This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," May 19, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, ANCHOR: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Happy Sunday.
Joining us exclusively straight ahead right here on "Sunday Morning Futures," House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on President Trump's immigration plan, where Republicans and Democrats can work together ahead of the 2020 election, reaction to one GOP lawmaker claiming President Trump committed impeachable offenses.
We will also hear from the ranking members of two powerful committees this morning, Congressman Doug Collins from Judiciary on his Democratic colleagues targeting Attorney General Bill Barr before the Justice Department inspector general releases his report on the origins of the Russia probe.
And Congressman Mac Thornberry is here from Armed Services on Iran tensions and how concerns over Chinese telecom giant Huawei may be impacting U.S.- China trade talks.
Plus, Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell is here with us, co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, along with former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, why he says, when it comes to the origins of the Russia probe, look to e-mails between James Comey and John Brennan.
All that as we look ahead right now right here on "Sunday Morning Futures."
And the long-awaited DOJ inspector general's report on the origins of the Russia investigation is expected to be completed in the coming weeks. A source telling FOX News that I.G. Michael Horowitz is focusing on the role of the Steele dossier in securing a surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page.
Attorney General William Barr, speaking out on all of this, saying he has questions about how then president-elect Trump was briefed on the salacious and unverified material in that dossier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL HEMMER, ANCHOR: In the period of time between Election Day and the inauguration, did anyone in government or in intelligence, did they take action to justify their decisions?
WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think there was some very strange developments during that period. That's one of the things we want to look into.
HEMMER: Such as?
BARR: Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6 between the intelligence chiefs and the president and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.
HEMMER: hat questions do you have about what happened that day?
BARR: Again, I'm not going to get into...
HEMMER: But it's on your mind?
BARR: That's one of the things we need to look at.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: Attorney General Barr with Bill Hemmer there.
Joining me now, in an exclusive interview, is Congressman from Georgia Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: Great to be with you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: First, your reaction to the A.G. speaking out and making no bones about it, there were questions then, he has more questions now?
COLLINS: I believe when he's getting into it, Maria, what we're seeing is Attorney General Barr being an attorney general.
He's actually looking at his department. He's looking at what has happened. He sees what's been going on over the past couple years. And he wants to know, what is the predicate for it? How did we get here? Were there things that were done right? Were there things that were done wrong?
This is an attorney general who seems to really take his job seriously, who's been very straightforward with the American people. He's been very straightforward with Congress and with the media.
I think this is the thing that we have needed the most in this, is clarity from someone who says, let's find the answers, let's take all the spin off, and let's get to the bottom of it.
BARTIROMO: And you and your colleagues have already done a ton of work on this. You have seen a lot of the redacted material and the classified information.
Now we know John Durham is on the case. What will this U.S. attorney find out, you think, in terms of the most damning evidence?
COLLINS: This is going to be the interesting part. And I think it really speaks well for the attorney general and also why the Democrats are so afraid of this attorney general actually asking the real tough questions and putting Mr. Durham in charge of this.
The things that would concern me the most damning things that I would be looking at, is, was there information that was misleading to the FISA court? Was there actual lies? Was there abuses there that now are coming out? Was there other issues that have been now misrepresented maybe before Congress or before other agencies as we go forward?
I think these are the questions that you have to ask. What I appreciate about the attorney general not doing is jumping to conclusions. He said, we're going to investigate this. We're going to see what actually was out there, because there's too many discrepancies in the stories.
But if there are some out there who have been trying to now cover up their tracks, I think Bill Barr is going to get to the bottom of it.
BARTIROMO: Well, the FBI has been saying for some time now that the investigation or the counterintelligence investigation began in July of 2016.
But we just had George Papadopoulos on just two weeks ago, who told us informants were thrown at him as early as March of 2016. Are we learning more and more evidence that, in fact, the spying and the informants began way before the official beginning of that investigation, which they're saying is July of '16?
COLLINS: Well, I think that's what we're beginning to see.
And I think that's the unraveling that is coming apart here. And you see many of the players who are now trying to actually come out and try and spin stories differently. We're seeing the story in totality.
And you and I have talked about this before. It goes back to sort of that cabal that started on the mid-year investigation, the Clinton e-mail investigation with Strzok and Page and Baker, Comey, all this coming together.
And so now we're getting a better picture of the intent and better picture of what they were actually planning. As this is actually investigated, and Mr. Durham continues is, this is where I believe we will see the -- either the confirmation of what many of us have thought, that there was this determination that they didn't like the president, now President Trump, candidate Trump at the time, and they were doing everything in their possibility to keep that from happening.
BARTIROMO: And some people are still doing that. I mean, you have got Jim Comey out and about doing town halls, doing interviews, and tweeting.
This last tweet, he sent out last night. Look at this; "The A.G. should stop sliming his own department. If there are bad facts, show us or search for them professionally, and then tell us what you found. An A.G. must act like the leader of the Department of Justice, an organization based on truth. Donald Trump has enough spokespeople."
Wow, considering this was the former FBI director who met with the then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a tarmac two weeks -- two days, rather, before he was supposed to interview the subject, Hillary Clinton.
I begin to believe he protests just a little bit too much. I think the issue here is, as someone who for years when he was not being scrutinized, was looked at as this Captain America figure, I'm stepping forward for the good of the country, and now we're beginning to see that Jim Comey is really a much more political animal than he's let on to be.
He's actually been one at the center of this whole thing for the last two- and-a-half years. And now he's going out and actually talking about Attorney General Barr and slime. Maybe he's -- I'm not sure where he's coming from on that part, because the former FBI director has put enough slime out there himself by how he has acted and how he has went forward on many things, when we look at his performance, especially coming out of the Clinton investigation, into the issues with the FISA, into the issue of the Russia investigation.
Like I said, Maria, I think we're finding someone who's protesting a little bit too much, because he now knows somebody actually may look at what he actually did do.
BARTIROMO: Yes, and that's exactly what the A.G. is doing.
Let me ask you about Robert Mueller, because your committee has wanted to speak with him, to have him come down and testify in front of Judiciary. Is somebody slow-walking this? What's going on?
COLLINS: Seems to be.
At this point, the attorney general actually talked the other day and said he's got no problem with Mueller coming. I have asked for Mueller to come. And I know others have as well, because we have serious questions about the Mueller report as well, not just the fact that there was no collusion, no obstruction, and no charges obstruction, but actually what did he look at?
When did he actually come to the conclusion that there was no obstruction? When did he actually decide that there were issues that we didn't look into the dossier more? These are the kind of lessons we want to see.
But it is interesting that the chairman of my committee, Chairman Nadler, he's talked about getting Mueller there. And then he talks to him some more. And we're still not having him here.
So I think that the interesting thing here, Maria, is Democrats are becoming more and more concerned about what they're finding out. They did not get out of the Mueller report what they wanted. They don't like an attorney general who's actually doing his job.
And now they're beginning to worry that if Mueller comes in and he just confirms what they have, they're in a tough political position. And I think that is the problem that they're facing now, is, what do they do with what they promised, when they went out over their skis and said, all this is going to be proven and Donald Trump is guilty? Now they're having to deal with reality.
BARTIROMO: And that's one reason that you have been releasing a lot of transcripts of these closed-door testimonies, so that the American people can understand exactly what was said during these testimonies.
Are you going to be releasing more testimonies?
COLLINS: We will be. We're making that final case right now. We're getting it all together. But we will be soon, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Are you going to be releasing Andrew McCabe's testimony?
COLLINS: He will be part of the group that is released, yes.
BARTIROMO: So, I wonder, because I know you spoke to Andrew McCabe early on. I'm wondering if you believe that Attorney General Bill Barr should have Andy McCabe come down and speak to him?
COLLINS: Well, I think that will be what the process that the attorney general is actually looking into as we go forward. So I'm sure he will be caught up with the questions that of just how this got started.
Bill Barr has made it very clear: I want to see how this started. I want to know how this progressed. And I want to know how it actually is coming to play, because what he -- undoubtedly he has seen -- and there's nothing to doubt Bill Barr's honesty. There's nothing to doubt his truthfulness.
He's been truthful on everything that he has said so far to everyone. So I think he is really taking this in a very panoramic view. He's looking at it from all sides. And he said, I want my folks to look at this and determine, is there -- was there something wrong? If there was something wrong, will it be -- they will be held accountable, and that it won't happen again.
This episode in our history is something we need to make sure that FBI and Department of Justice is operating as it should, and American citizens do not have to worry about a FISA process and a FISA court being abused.
Well, there was -- there was misleading information, which people want to understand why the FISA court was not told that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats actually paid for that Steele dossier.
I want to ask you about what you're doing in this upcoming week because, Congressman, I know that your committee is going to be voting on three bills when it comes to immigration.
Stay with us. We will take a short break. Doug Collins, be back with you to talk about immigration and your proposals, as the crisis along the southern border rages on.
What is the Democrat plan? And do they actually acknowledge there is a problem?
Plenty more high-profile guests this morning straight ahead with breaking news, House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Mac Thornberry on China and Iran, Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, and Trey Gowdy is here as well. He's got an important e- mail to tell us about.
Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures, or Instagram @SundayFutures.
We will be right back. Stay with us.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
And I am back with the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Georgia Congressman Doug Collins.
And, Congressman, I just want to wrap up what we were just talking about before we get into immigration.
It was just about three days before Hillary Clinton was to be interviewed before the FBI for the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails. And her husband, Bill Clinton, met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix.
You remember the day. I remember the day. And our viewers know exactly what went on there.
Do you think this is going to be part of any of these investigations, that e-mail investigation of Hillary Clinton, and why her husband met with the sitting attorney general? And, if I remember correctly, at the time, they said they decided to talk about grandkids.
COLLINS: That was the most reported grandkid conversation in history.
I think it's going to get caught up, because I think you may see some investigation in it. But I believe what the attorney general is looking at is, where did this come from? And I think there's some overlap between the players.
And I think that is one -- something that he's made very important. Field level officers didn't -- and field level out agents did not do most of the investigation. This was conducted at the senior levels at the Department of Justice.
So when you look at the Department of Justice's investigation, the Russian part, and then you also look how it came over from the midyear investigation, I think you're going to see a lot of overlap.
So there could be some questions there. We will have to see how the USA wants to do that.
BARTIROMO: Yes. I just find it so rich that here is Jim Comey criticizing Bill Barr, when, in fact, he was overseeing the FBI at the time that Hillary's husband meets with his boss, Loretta Lynch.
Let me move on to immigration, because the House Judiciary Committee this upcoming week is going to be voting on three immigration bills Wednesday, the first real action the House has taken on this issue, although you have a bill on the border crisis. Tell me about what you're going to be voting on this upcoming week.
COLLINS: Well, this week, we're going to be dealing with dreamers.
And this is -- again, the unfortunate part of what we have had, Maria, is for many of us who believe that there are bipartisan solutions, especially for immigration and for other things, the Judiciary Committee has really been on two tangents. And Chairman Nadler can't seem to get off of.
One is messaging bills that will never become law. And, if they did, they'd be very harmful, number two, not dealing with a crisis on the border. This week's dreamer bill is a very -- an expansion of amnesty for those who have came over, perceivably under those, the children who came over with no way of having any control over that by parents.
The bill has a lot of problems. We're going to be dealing with that in committee this week. But the question I have for my chairman and others in the Democratic Party is, why are we not focused on the crisis at the border that the president's been talking about for a long time, but now is averaging over the past week or so 4,500 apprehensions a day?
These are family units.
COLLINS: And if anybody doesn't believe this is a crisis, number -- two things. One, this is bigger than the numbers when President Obama went on TV and made the plea saying, we have a crisis.
And we actually stayed that summer and gave more money. And there seemed to be bipartisan support at that point for the unaccompanied minors coming across the border.
Now, it seems like the Democrats simply want to use them as pawns. The other thing is, if you don't believe this is a problem, if you don't believe we need to fix it, which is what my bill does, is, there was a 51- year-old Honduras man the other -- just recently who had been deported once, who came over with a 6-month-old child that was not his relative, knowing that, once they got here, he would be treated differently because he had the unaccompanied minor with him.
Think about that for a second.
COLLINS: If you don't believe there's a problem, we got a problem.
BARTIROMO: Well, we're looking at pictures right now of when we did "Sunday Morning Futures" from the border in El Paso, Texas, just a couple of weeks ago.
And I'm talking to these children, one an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old, who are alone. They crossed the border alone. The other woman, who was holding an infant, had been walking in hitchhiking for three months.
It's an incredible story, particularly what you see happening with children. So what did you think of the president's analysis this week, and his plan to tackle the border crisis, now 520,000 apprehensions just since October? We saw many of them while we were standing right there talking to Border Patrol.
COLLINS: The numbers are staggering.
And I'm proud of the president. I think that what the president has done is, he's taken a twofold approach. One, this week, he actually introduced and discuss legal immigration, which is something that is valuable to our economy, valuable to our nation and sovereignty as a status, is people who want to come here who can produce and be a part from all over the world, no matter where they come from, having that ability to come under our legal immigration system.
And I'm glad that he has focused on that, because that's something that, frankly, also the Democrats have ignored completely as well. But he also, again, continues the twofold purpose on the border itself.
That's where my bill comes in. That's what he has discussed in his. And that is dealing with the Flores decision, which means that we can't keep the unaccompanied minors in custody for more than 20 days. Then we also have the asylum fix in my bill, which is raising the credible fear standard.
Right now, more than 80 to 90 percent, once they cross the border and simply say, I have credible fear that if I go back to something would happen to me, they're let in. But when they actually come back, if they do come back to the immigration court, less than 10 percent are actually -- roughly around 10 percent are actually getting to stay under that standard.
COLLINS: We have got to fix that.
The last one is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which means that we cannot send an unaccompanied minor back to their home, if they're not in Mexico or Canada. This is where it's really -- these three areas, the Flores asylum and these trafficking victim, actually, is really the key crux of taking away the -- just the heinous act of letting people think that there is something better for him if they take on these trips, the young people that you saw, those children coming across.
COLLINS: Coyotes are giving two-for-one discounts if it's a child, because all they know is they have to dump them at the border, and that we have to take them, because we have a perverse incentive for folks around the world to get out of bad conditions that they're in and just simply make horrific trips here, when we need to have a legal, safe route for people to come...
COLLINS: ... but also need to control our borders.
BARTIROMO: It's a very dangerous situation. We will be watching, and I know Senator Lindsey Graham working on a similar piece of legislation as well over in the Senate.
Congressman, good to see you. Thanks so much.
COLLINS: Maria, take care. Have a good day.
BARTIROMO: Straight ahead, the foreign ministers of both Iran and China meeting, as tensions are flaring up between both countries and the United States. What did they discuss? What are the next steps for the Trump administration when it comes to dealing with both Beijing and Tehran?
The ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, is with me next.
Then Trey Gowdy on e-mails between former FBI Director Jim Comey and his senior upper echelon staff about John Brennan and that salacious dossier that was the impetus for the FISA warrant.
Back in a moment.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
A trade war is escalating between the world's two largest economies. Amid stalled trade talks with Beijing, President Trump signed an order, an executive order, that would block Chinese technology giant Huawei from doing business with American companies over cybersecurity concerns, espionage.
Tensions are also rising between the U.S. and Iran, whose foreign minister met Friday with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing. The Wall Street Journal reports that they discussed saving the Iran nuke deal President Trump abandoned a year ago.
Joining me right now is ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry.
Congressman, it's good to have you on the program. Thanks very much for joining us.
REP. MAC THORNBERRY, R-TX: Thank you, ma'am.
BARTIROMO: Your reaction to that discussion about getting back into the Iran nuclear deal?
THORNBERRY: Well, I think both countries have an interest in thwarting U.S. policy, and they are probably talking with each other about how they can cooperate to do that.
It extends far beyond the U.S. nuclear deal. Iran is causing mischief and worse throughout the Middle East. Of course, China has interests in diminishing our influence there. And so they have some things in common.
BARTIROMO: So, before I get a little deeper into China, let me ask you about the threat around Iran, because the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, directed all nonessential employees to leave Iraq immediately.
The last time we did that, I believe, was right before the Iraq War so many years ago. How serious is the threat right now with Iran?
THORNBERRY: The threat is serious.
I have been in three classified meetings or briefings over the past two weeks. And I think there's no doubt that the information and warnings we have received are far more serious than the normal sort of information we get about Iran's malicious activities.
And that elevated threat is particularly directed towards Americans. And I think anyone really has to have their political blinders on to dismiss this elevated threat information that we have received.
And I think the administration has responded appropriately by making it clear, not just through words, but through actions, movement of troops and forces and so forth, that, if Iran attacks us, we will respond.
BARTIROMO: Do you expect any disruption in terms of the oil markets, given the Straits of Hormuz and what the Iranians might be able to do there?
THORNBERRY: Well, there could be.
We saw this past week four tankers receive some sort of attack or explosion that didn't sink them, but it may have been a warning sign that Iran could do worse. And, remember, the context here is, Iran's economy is in real trouble. And oil is a major factor in their economy.
So all of this could be part of their plan to increase the price of oil, help their old economy, and cause some disruption throughout the Persian Gulf.
BARTIROMO: And then there's China.
Let me ask you about the disruption there. The talks have collapsed in terms of the U.S. and China doing a trade deal. And we talk a lot about this partnership as an economic partnership, but there's a real national security story around China. Can you walk us through it?
THORNBERRY: Well, I think you're right. It has certainly gone beyond trade and economics at this point.
Part of what's at stake is which nation is going to set the standard for the rest of the world, which nation's values are going to predominate. We see China using not just their military, but their economic and trade leverage and investment, all over the world to get their hooks into some of these less developed countries who are just desperate for ports and roads and other kinds of infrastructure.
But once China starts getting their hooks in them, then they expect those lesser developed countries to toe the line. And they're doing it not just in Asia, but in Africa and all sorts of places around the world.
We see Chinese influence in South America, for example. So this is -- really is a worldwide competition, a strategic competition that goes far beyond trade and economics.
And I think it's very important for the president not to capitulate and back down now in these trade talks, because there are things that are much bigger at stake.
BARTIROMO: And when you say get their hooks in there, let's explain that for a moment, because China has a lot of money. It throws it around. It may acquire various firms, if they want that technology.
And those companies who are money-losing will just get acquired by Chinese. They are also telling countries in Africa and throughout Europe, we have your back when it comes to infrastructure of telecom. We will build your infrastructure with Huawei technology.
What are the risks around that?
THORNBERRY: Oh, they're enormous.
And they're not just doing that in Africa and South Asia. Even in Europe, they will go into Europe with very low-cost telecommunications equipment. But there is a real significant danger, with all of that Chinese-built equipment, that it doesn't just perform its mission, but it also is a threat to the information that passes through that equipment and sends it back home to Beijing.
And so one of our major areas of discussion in recent months with our European allies is, don't be swayed by these low-cost deals that China is trying to make with you, because there is a real threat to your security and our ability to share information.
So, whether it is Huawei routers, whether it is financing ports and infrastructure and so forth with debt terms that the countries can't possibly pay back, whether it is, as you mentioned, buying firms to get their intellectual property, stealing intellectual property all over the -- all over the world, there is a worldwide competition going on here.
China has all sorts of levers to -- and tools to use, and it's using them effectively.
BARTIROMO: Yes, go ahead, sir.
THORNBERRY: No, I was just going to say, it's very important for us, number one, to be aware, and, number two, use the tools that we have more effectively in pushing back.
BARTIROMO: Which is why Secretary Pompeo joined me recently and said, if the Europeans use Huawei Telecom, we will have to share less information with them, because everybody's involved.
Congressman, it's good to have you on the program. Thanks very much, sir.
THORNBERRY: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Still ahead, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy is here, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, and former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy.
We will be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages and safety of American workers first.
And we want immigrants coming in. We cherish the open door that we want to create for our country. But a big proportion of those immigrants must come in through merit and skill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: President Trump on Thursday unveiling his plan to reform immigration law, proposing that the country move to a merit-based system that prioritizes highly skilled workers.
Joining me right now is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy from Florida today.
Congressman, it's good to see this morning. Thanks so much for being here.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: Thanks for having me on your show. I appreciate it.
BARTIROMO: Your reaction to the president's plan and the fact that the administration is lifting those tariffs on Mexico and Canada, perhaps as a way to make the USMCA legislation easier to pass?
MCCARTHY: Well, two milestones just happened in the last week.
Lifting the steel tariffs on Canada and Mexico make it even closer to passing USMCA. And then look what happened in Mexico. One of the requirements the Democrats have had is that they change their labor laws. Well, that has passed the Senate in Mexico.
So now there is nothing holding us back to pass the bill that would bring more jobs to America. And the timing could not be more perfect. It will only make us stronger in this battle with China, where China doesn't want to have a fair trade agreement.
But it would unite America's. And that is something that would be much stronger in this debate going forward, make America stronger, make our economy even bigger and create -- they're talking about more than 200,000 new jobs.
So there's one -- only one person holding this up. The speaker, Nancy Pelosi, she can call up that vote, and it will pass.
BARTIROMO: Well, that's the thing. I mean, hasn't she said she's not bringing it to the floor right now? Are you expecting the USMCA to come to the floor for a vote so it can pass?
MCCARTHY: I want it to come to the floor, because it will pass.
And the requirements the Democrats have asked for have now been met. Those milestones of the trade -- of the steel tariffs, the idea that Mexico would even have a vote in their own Senate to change their labor laws proves it's an opportunity now to move forward.
And I think it's a better time to do it now than moving later into the year, especially when we're dealing with China right now. You would want America to have a stronger hand in this debate.
BARTIROMO: So what can you get done with the Democrats? I mean, let me let me just end the USMCA conversation here. Do you expect it to come to the floor any time soon?
MCCARTHY: I want it to come to the floor very soon.
BARTIROMO: But you don't know?
MCCARTHY: I would hope it would come.
There is one person that determines that, the speaker of the House.
MCCARTHY: And I think, even from looking at America, understanding politics, knowing the presidential campaign is going to be moving forward, let's put people before politics. This makes America stronger.
You asked for certain requirements. Those have been met. Now is the perfect time to really focus on America. Move this forward. And right now, in the next two months, would be the best time to vote on it.
BARTIROMO: Well, what can -- what have you worked together with the Democrats on? Can you point us to some successes or work that could be successful in terms of the two parties working together so far?
MCCARTHY: Look, as Republican leader, I will work with anyone that wants to work and move America forward.
And we had two opportunities. But it's very concerning just in the last week. We were working about lowering prescription drugs. In Energy and Commerce, we actually passed three bills that would give the public and the consumer more options at a lower price. And it passed unanimously, with every Republican and every Democrat voting for it.
But before it came to the floor, the Democrat leadership put a poison pill in it. And, in this poison pill, dealing with the Affordable Care Act, they were now going to remove, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 1.5 millions Americans' preferred health plan.
They wanted to make sure that this bill would not become law. Even one of the congresswomen who was one of the best friends with the speaker, Anna Eshoo, said she did not like this path going forward.
And then, when we look at Ways and Means, we just had the Secure Act dealing with pensions...
MCCARTHY: ... and other items pass the -- pass the committee unanimously, with every Republican and every Democrat.
And you know what's happening now before it's coming to the floor? They're removing the 529 plan that gives the parents the freedom to save money for their kids' college. They're breaking their promise.
And if that is the pattern, how could we ever get to an infrastructure deal or other items? So, that is the concern. This is not the same Democratic Party in the past. This has become a socialist Democratic Party that wants greater control over our lives and less freedom.
BARTIROMO: So you're saying that you have produced bills, but when it's actually time to vote on them, your colleagues on the left are putting new things in there to make it hard for people to agree on?
MCCARTHY: Maria, look at this.
In committee, every Republican and every Democrat voted for it, very tough discussion about prescription drugs...
MCCARTHY: ... one that the consumers on all ends would win.
And then, when it came to save their -- their parents being able to save money for their children's college, the Democrats have put poison pills.
MCCARTHY: And I have said it on your show before.
MCCARTHY: This new Democrat socialist party is more concerned in subpoenas than they are with solutions.
BARTIROMO: There's also...
MCCARTHY: Name me one problem they have solved in this new majority.
BARTIROMO: Well, there's also the op-ed that you wrote last week with Mitch McConnell about the House standing against the toxic BDS movement.
Now, there was a bill which Chuck Schumer supported and co-sponsored. Where does that stand in terms of anti-Israel rhetoric?
MCCARTHY: This is one of the most concerning.
Here's the bill that passes the Senate 77-23. Chuck Schumer not only voted for. He co-sponsored it. It has come to the House. They won't even schedule it in a committee.
This is what we're talking about when you say anti-Semitic. This goes to the core of it. It's about boycotting, divestment, sanctions against Israel, wanting Israel to fail. The Democrats say one thing, but this new socialist Democratic Party won't even allow this to go into committee.
So we have one rule that we can deal with. It's called a discharge petition.
MCCARTHY: Congressman Brian Mast has set it up. So all it takes is 218 members to sign that to bring that bill directly to the floor. Only 21 Democrats need to sign it. They talk about it.
But let's see if they really will stand up to the anti-Semitic things that are coming out, not across this world...
MCCARTHY: ... but right in this own House.
BARTIROMO: Look, even within your own party, with your own convention here, you have got division.
I want to read this quote -- this tweet from Justin Amash. Your colleague on the GOP says: "Here are my principal conclusions. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report. Number two, President Trump has engaged in impeachable -- impeachable conduct. Number three, partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances. Number four, few members of Congress have read the Mueller report."
President Trump has -- has responded to this. And the president tweeted right after Amash tweeted.
And he says: "Never a fan of Justin Amash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies, just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy."
What's happening, sir?
MCCARTHY: Well, apparently, those who know Justin Amash, this is exactly what he wants. He wants to have attention.
Now, you have got to understand Justin Amash. He's been in Congress quite some time. I think he's only ever asked one question in all the committees that he's been in. He votes more with Nancy Pelosi than he ever votes with me. It's a question whether he's even in our Republican Conference as a whole.
What he wants is attention in this process. He's not a criminal attorney. He's never met Mueller. He's never met Barr. And now he's coming forward with this? Because this is what he wants. He wants a Sunday show to put his name forward with a question.
It's really disturbing, because, when you watch on the floor, you could have a bill with 400 votes all supporting it. There will always be one opposed, and that will be Justin Amash.
BARTIROMO: Well, it's also speculated that he wants to run against President Trump in the 2020 election as a libertarian. Has he said that to you?
MCCARTHY: Well, I know he said it on some show before. He had a very hard time winning in the last election.
So I wonder. Maybe he wants some type of exit strategy. But it's very disturbing. This is exactly what you would expect from Justin. He never supported the president. And I think he's just looking for attention.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much.
MCCARTHY: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Congressman Kevin McCarthy there.
Up next, we will hear from the other side of the aisle with Michigan Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell.
Stay with us.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
We just heard from Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Joining me now, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan.
Congresswoman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thank you for being here.
Please respond to what you just heard from your colleague on the right, Kevin McCarthy, who says that your party is more interested in subpoenas, as opposed to solutions.
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL, D-MICH.: So, I'm going to so disagree with him.
I have great respect for Kevin McCarthy. And I heard a lot of talking points this morning.
I am one of those people who has said from the beginning Congress has an oversight responsibility. We need to continue that oversight. But we have got -- both parties, by the way, have got to deliver for the people.
And he was right to talk about prescription drugs. But where you go across this country, it's all I have heard about again this weekend. People are worried about the cost of health care, the cost of their prescription drugs.
BARTIROMO: So how can you couldn't get it over the line? How come you couldn't get the drug price bill over the line, then?
DINGELL: Well, we did pass a drug -- we passed some bills this weekend on drug pricing.
But the fact of the matter is, we have got to do a lot more. I hope we can do it in a bipartisan way, because here's the reality. We can get bills through the House. We want to work in Energy and Commerce, which is the committee I'm on, moving out these bills.
The more bipartisan we make them, I think it's better off for the country. We need the Senate to move the bills.
I assure you we will get bills out of the House. And we will do it quickly, that let's hope that we can get bills that are bipartisan and that we can get the president to sign.
The president is hearing the same things.
BARTIROMO: Congresswoman, what about USMCA? You going to vote for USMCA?
DINGELL: I'm not there yet. But...
BARTIROMO: Why not? Why not? What is the problem with the bill?
DINGELL: I think there's two issues.
One is that it -- we made progress in Mexico on the labor provisions, but we -- it's got to be stronger on enforcement of those labor provisions. And they have got to make it there.
General Motors moved a Blazer plant to -- or put a Blazer plant in Mexico and is paying $1.50 an hour. And we're competing with that salary. And it's not tough enough to make sure that that doesn't happen yet.
And, two, Kevin McCarthy didn't talk about the fact that there are pharmaceutical provisions in there that will increase the cost of drugs. We need to address those. Ambassador Lighthizer knows that those have to be addressed. He is dealing. He said, tell me who to deal with. I'm talking to 100 people.
He is dealing with the speaker of the House. We know we need a level playing field. That's an important piece of legislation. But it's got to be done right.
BARTIROMO: So, you have got -- you have got 100,000-plus jobs on the line. Are you willing to vote no on USMCA and let those jobs go away?
DINGELL: Well, I'm never going to vote against a job, but I'm not going to vote up for a bad bill.
And I think that's what legislation is. You move together. You compromise. But you can't compromise...
BARTIROMO: How about all of the -- how about all of the anti-Israel rhetoric going on in your chamber? You heard what Kevin McCarthy said. What about that?
DINGELL: You know, I think that we're at a unique time in American history.
And I -- look, I have one of the most unique districts in the country, the highest population of Muslims in the country, but I also have a very significant Jewish community. And both communities are under attack with people that are targeting them with hatred and fear and bigotry.
We got to stand up against all of this. One of the most fundamental pillars of our Constitution is freedom of religion. And these two communities -- I am absolutely for a free state of Israel. We have to make sure that they can be there.
But we have got to stop this denunciation of the Muslims that happens in this country too. We're in a country that believes in freedom of religion...
BARTIROMO: Yes. Congresswoman...
DINGELL: ... and freedom of speech. That's part of this.
BARTIROMO: Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
DINGELL: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Debbie Dingell joining us there.
We will be right back with Trey Gowdy and some interesting news. Wait until you hear this about this e-mail from 2016.
Stay with us.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Attorney General William Barr speaking out on the Department of Justice's push to investigate the origins of the Russia probe.
Let's bring in Trey Gowdy, the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a FOX News contributor.
It is great to see you, Trey. Thanks so much for joining us.
TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Your reaction to what you heard from Bill Barr?
Obviously, the Democrats are painting him now as being political and not being the honest broker that they said he was at the beginning.
GOWDY: Yes, I don't think they liked the old A.G. either. They're not going to like whoever replaces Bill Barr.
There are a lot of serious questions that need to be asked. When did the Russia probe begin? When did it become hopelessly commingled with the Trump campaign? What was the factual predicate? Where are the transcripts, if any exists, between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos, why the defensive briefing so inadequate of President Trump? Why didn't you do a follow-up defensive briefing?
That doesn't even get to the whole FISA story in the fall. That's just -- that's just the spring and summer of 2016. There are lots of questions. And I hope Bill Barr finds someone who is skilled enough to answer them.
GOWDY: To ask them and then answer them.
BARTIROMO: I'm really glad you brought that up, the FBI agents' conversations with George Papadopoulos, because when an FBI agent sends in informants to someone they're looking at, typically, those conversations are recorded, right? Those people are wired.
I mean, if the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired. And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that.
And some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist, but they haven't been made public. And I think one in particular is going -- it has the potential to actually persuade people.
Very little on this Russia probe, I'm afraid, is going to persuade people who hate Trump or who love Trump. But there is some information in these transcripts that I think has the potential to be a game-changer danger, if it's ever made public.
BARTIROMO: You say that's exculpatory evidence.
And when people see that, they're going to say, wait, why wasn't this presented to the court earlier?
You know, Johnny Ratcliffe is rightfully exercised over the obligations that the government has to tell the whole truth to a court when you are seeking permission to spy or do surveillance on an American.
And part of that includes the responsibility of providing exculpatory information or information that tends to show the person didn't do something wrong. If you have exculpatory information, and you don't share it with the court, that ain't good. I have seen it. Johnny has seen it. I would love for your viewers to see it.
BARTIROMO: All right. So that's the transcripts of FBI agents and George Papadopoulos. We're going to be on the lookout for that.
Take me back to an e-mail that Jim Comey wrote to his upper echelon staff. This is also considered classified, but you have seen it. What can you tell us about it?
GOWDY: Well, take a half-step back.
People use the word dossier, and it has such an official sound to it. I mean, let's just call it for what it is. It's a series of rank hearsay -- hearsay compilations put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee.
And, oh, by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. So we can call it a dossier. It sounds official. It's really something The National Enquirer would blush if they printed. So we know that it was used four times by the United States government.
What we're trying to figure out is whether or not it was used a fifth time in the intelligence assessment. And you got Brennan, Clapper and Comey, all three who know full well whether or not it was used in the intelligence assessment, but they're giving you different -- they're giving you different versions.
GOWDY: So there is information that exists in December of 2016. And I hope anyone who has access to it, Senator Burr, Devin, whoever is open- minded, go look at that.
And I think it will help you understand whether or not that dossier...
GOWDY: ... that unverified hearsay, was used a -- for five times or just four times by the United States government.
It's pretty bad if it was just four times.
GOWDY: It's really bad if it was five.
BARTIROMO: Jim Comey calls it the crown material.
Trey Gowdy, it's good to see you. Thanks very much.
GOWDY: Yes, ma'am.
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.