Rep. McCaul: Troops can provide a deterrence on the border

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," April 8, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Good Sunday morning everybody. Thanks for joining us. National Guard Troops on the move to the southern border. New Department of Justice documents headed to Congress tomorrow morning, as Republicans demand the FBI stonewalling to stop. And Facebook says if you want to ensure your data is not sold out, pay up. Good morning everyone, I'm Maria Bartiromo, welcome to 'Sunday Morning Futures.' Border security, economic security and international security, top priorities for the Trump administration this upcoming week, top Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul coming up on the President's order to send National Guard troops to our border with Mexico. Also Gordon Chang is with me this morning on China and protecting American interest even in the face of a potential trade war. Plus House Armed Services Committee Chairman Max Thornberry is here on the Pentagon's plan to withdraw from Syria amid new reports this morning of another chemical attack on a hospital. Plus, we are waiting a highly anticipated report this month from the Inspector General, the DOJ's watchdog as the Department of Justice misses a subpoena deadline last week issued by Republicans. House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy joins us on that coming up. And who could like this, Facebook's number two suggesting users pay up to keep their private information private as its Founder and CEO heads to Capitol Hill this upcoming week amid a P.R. firestorm at Facebook. All those stories coming up this Sunday morning right here on 'Sunday Morning Futures.'
Well after a more than year-long investigation, the Inspector General will soon release its explosive report detailing how the FBI and the Justice Department mishandled the Clinton e-mail probe while also probing President Trump. President Trump and House Republicans are accusing the DOJ of stonewalling lawmakers who are looking into the FBI's actions during the 2016 Presidential Election. The Justice Department says about a thousand new pages are being turned over by tomorrow morning. This all comes amid new questions about the document that launched the FBI's Russia investigation in the first place. Joining me right now is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Trey Gowdy. He also sits on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee. Mr. Chairman, always a pleasure. Thanks for joining us this morning.


BARTIROMO: So we want to -- want talk about where we stand right now. I'd like to get your take on that. I want to be clear there are two different requests from Congress one is the Bob Goodlatte subpoena. That's the one he subpoenaed, he talked about that on this program and the FBI has responded by saying they're going to double the number of people getting those documents to you and your colleagues including Bob Goodlatte. The other one is members of the committee want to see the FISA information to review fully unredacted electronic communication. What are you expecting to see what do you want to see from that electronic communication, sir?

GOWDY: Well, I think one of the requests is from Devin Nunes. That is the document that kind of initiated the entire investigation. I've actually seen it, I saw a heavily redacted version, I saw a less redacted version but I have not seen a clean version and I need to know what's behind those black lines because it's really important how this investigation began, when it began, and what is the -- what is the weight, what is the credibility of the evidence upon which this investigation was launched and the Department of Justice and the FBI have that document, they won't let us see the clean version, and I'm struggling to understand why.

BARTIROMO: So when you look at the unredacted version versus the redacted version, I mean is something really struck me recently whereas we saw one unredaction and it was about this cocktail party that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were talking about that a FISA judge, Judge Contreras was going to be at and Peter Strzok wanted to go to that party so that he could talk with Judge Contreras all while they were trying to get this FISA warrant to spy on people from the Trump campaign so that raises the question -- we'll if they were redacting something about a party where he was going to go meet a FISA Judge, that's not national security is it?

GOWDY: No that's embarrassment and that is not a sufficient reason. To redact anything is that the FBI and the Department might be embarrassed. So that's why we want to see the clean version. And if there's a national security issue, we want it redacted. But most of what they send us now looks like an inkblot test, the Rorschach inkblot test and we can't figure out what's behind the black paragraphs and if it's just the embarrassment of the bureau, I hate it but that is not a sufficient reason to withhold that information from Congress.

BARTIROMO: And after Bob Goodlatte's subpoena, the FBI responded and said look, we're going to double the number of people working on this. And with all due respect, I appreciate the candor and there and the response but there were 26 people working on it if they're going to double that to 54 with 26 people they have 3,000 documents. With 54, does that mean they're going to have 6,000 documents? And we're talking about more than a million documents, was that the right response to say we're going to double the number of people and do you think that's going to be effective?

GOWDY: No, ma'am. I made an F in my last math class but I think anything times0 is 0. So if it's 26 agents and we're getting nothing and if it's 52 agents and we're getting nothing, the result is the same. I mean, I don't care how many agents are working on it, it's really simple. You gave a million pages to the Inspector General so take out the Grand Jury material and give us what's left. It is impossible. I want to be able to support the FBI and DOJ but the world's premier law enforcement agency can't seem to operate a damn copying machine. That is I cannot help them explain a million documents to the Inspector General and a fraction of that to the entity who created and funds the FBI. So they're going to have to do better than a thousand pages here and there. President Trump picked every one of these decision makers, every one of them, he picked, so I appreciate the tweets, the encouraging tweets to these folks. There might be a more efficient way of communicating, so if Congress is entitled to this information, we shouldn't get it in thousand page increments. The Inspector General has a million pages.

BARTIROMO: Yes, that's really interesting that President Trump chose many of these people in these leadership positions. What is that to say you would think that they want to be independent thinking and they want to respond to Congress as they should, and yet the stonewalling seems so obvious.

GOWDY: Yes, well, we don't grade based on effort at this stage in life. We don't grade based on participation. I grade based on results. You gave Michael Horowitz a million pages, OK? Take out the grand jury material. We're not entitled to it. It's legally protected. If there's another legal argument for any of the other documents, make that argument but it should be a million minus grand jury and then turn over the rest to Congress. And we've gotten what? A couple thousand pages and we've been at this for about five months? I can tell you this, Maria, every member I have talked to is frustrated. Some of us have actually been somewhat muted in expressing our frustration because we want the documents and not the drama but I can tell you come next week -- I talked to Chairman Goodlatte two days ago. We are tired of being patient. We want the information or we want a really good explanation for why you're not producing it.

BARTIROMO: So what if you don't get it. What do you have? What tool do you have to actually demand that you actually get what you should be looking at? What happens next week?

GOWDY: We have three tools. We have three tools. We can bring them in. We can bring the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Head of the FBI in before really frustrated members of Congress and they can explain publicly to us why they gave the Inspector General a million pages of material and they've given us a fraction of that. We can call John Culbertson, who controls the funding for the Department of Justice and the FBI because that seems to get their attention, or the person who actually hired Jeff Sessions, actually hired Chris Wray, actually hired Rod Rosenstein and who by the way also controls the executive branch might want to communicate to them that he is displeased.

BARTIROMO: Yes. I can understand why you want to see the electronic communications because, during the 2016 election, it was quite an extraordinary period as we all know. There were two investigations going on. There was an investigation into Hillary Clinton's email usage and then there was an investigation into Donald Trump and his campaign and whether or not there was collusion with the Russians. The same people at the FBI were working on both of those investigations, those same people who were incredibly bias we know now because we've seen the text messages about name-calling for Trump that they really need Hillary Clinton, or they need an insurance policy. Those people are working on those investigations like Andrew McCabe until a week before the election, Chairman.

GOWDY: Yes, Andy McCabe was recused, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, unless something's happened since you and I have been on air they're still employed by the FBI. Now, Comey's gone, McCabe's gone, Rybicki is gone, but some of the folks are still there which is a pretty good question. How could you keep your job? Evidencing that amount of animus, not just bias, animus towards the target of your investigation, so there is a plausible defensible reason why Congress -- you've already got a U.S. Attorney from Utah looking into this. You've already got the Inspector General. With all due respect to both of them, they didn't create the FBI. They don't fund the FBI and they don't have a Constitutional responsibility to provide oversight. We do. And we can't do it if you give us a fraction of the documents that you give to the Inspector General.

BARTIROMO: So that's a point that Devin Nunes made on in the last hour. The Congress created the FBI and the Department of Justice. Let me ask you this, because those people who were still working at the FBI, they still have security clearance, don't they?

GOWDY: I would imagine. It's really tough to be an FBI agent and not have access to sensitive information. I guess unless you're an intern and I don't think they're in the intern program.

BARTIROMO: Yes, exactly.

GOWDY: No, they're FBI agents.

BARTIROMO: So the last time we spoke you wanted to see a second special counsel. Give me your thoughts on U.S. Attorney John Huber here investigating the actions here. Jeff Sessions deciding not to do a special second counsel and putting John Huber on the case, this prosecutor, your thoughts there real quick and do you think ultimately we still could see a second special counsel?

GOWDY: I think we could see a special counsel. I am going to withhold final judgment. This is someone whose not part of the main justice so that's good. That was our primary complaint that main justice could not do it. We wanted special counsel and particularly if there's going to be a criminal referral which I'm not assuming there is but if there is a criminal referral, I would like to see a special counsel appointed. This is a good interim first step. I've defended Attorney General Sessions when it was kind of lonely to do so. The failure to produce documents is indefensible. The picking of a U.S. attorney in Utah is defensible even though I disagree with it.

GOWDY: By the way, before you go, do you think we're going to see criminal referrals out of this I.G. report, the Michael Horowitz report?

GOWDY: You could. Any time I see a lack of candor that is Latin, sometimes, for false statement and, you know, there are a lot of people in the Mueller probe that have been walking in front of judges pleading guilty to making a false statement. I'm not presuming anything, I'm not prejudging anything, I really am waiting on Michael Horowitz's report but if there's a lack of candor and a duty particularly under oath to be candid then you may see criminal referrals.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will wait for that. We are all anticipate being the I.G. report. Congressman, it's good to see you, sir. Thanks so much.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate all you're doing here Chairman Trey Gowdy. Meanwhile, National Guard troops on the move right now to the southern border while overseas we're getting reports of a chemical attack on a hospital, the people of Syria. President Trump has reacted this morning, we will hear from the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul coming up next. Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear from Chairman McCaul as well as Mac Thornberry. Stay with us. We're looking ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES right now.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump touting his efforts to improve border security as nearly 500 National Guard troops make their way to the U.S.-Mexico border. More are expected to arrive in the near future after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis approved up to 4,000 National Guard personnel. The president says they will stay there until the wall is built. Big questions though remain over the cost of this mission and whether all border states will comply. One holdout, of course, California as Democratic Governor Jerry Brown has yet to issue an official response. At the other end of the spectrum though, our states like Texas that say they are all in. Joining me right now is Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, he's the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and member of the House Foreign Relations Committee Mr. Chairman it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks for joining us.


BARTIROMO: What should we expect from National Guards men and women at the Mexico border?

MCCAUL: Well, I talked to them yesterday. They deployed 250 from my state, probably 300 next week. I can tell you what they don't want to do and that's push paper and sit in an office. They want to be active basically active duty down on the border fulfilling the roles of border security missions. They want to do surveillance. They want to do watchtowers, they want to be right on the border with Border Patrol. They cannot apprehend them and process them because of Posse Comitatus and other federal laws. However, they can play a very good role and admission of deterrence down on the border because when the drug cartel sees our military down there it's going to stop them before they can get in.

BARTIROMO: So where is this going? I mean, the president has been talking about this border wall since the election and he continues to face pushback. You know, Secretary Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security, talked this week about looking to Congress for help to unlock this. Here's what she said, sir. Listen to this.


KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY: As a result of this continued congressional inaction, the administration has dropped legislation and we will be asking Congress again to provide the legal authority and resources to address this crisis at our borders. We will not allow illegal immigration levels to become the norm. More than a thousand people a day, 300,000 a year, violating our sovereignty as a nation will never be acceptable to this president.


BARTIROMO: Congressman at this point, what can you do? What can Congress do?

MCCAUL: Well, I talked to the secretary who had many meetings with her. Let me just say that since last year, crossings have gone up 200 percent, last month up nearly 40 percent. I think this bold action by the president putting our military and National Guard down on the border, I hope, is a wakeup call for Congress to get its job done. I have a border security bill, I passed that in my committee. It's been sitting out there and we want to put it on the floor. This would give her the secretary the resources she needs to finally get this job done. And Maria, we finally have the political will in Washington to get it done. We have a president who will sign this bill, unlike the last eight years. You and I have been talking about this for quite some time. In addition what the secretary talked about is closing legal loopholes. What does that mean? When they - - when these central Americans come into the United States, we can detain them for certain period of time and then it's called catch and release. They're given a notice to appear and they don't show up to the hearings so they essentially get into the United States. We need to change those laws, those legal loopholes, so that not only can we stop them at the border but once we apprehend them we can deport them expeditiously.

BARTIROMO: And the president tried that this week with executive order on catch and release. I mean, it just boggles the mind that you could step one foot into America, be caught, and then we have to release them and we don't know where they go and as you just said they're not showing up to the hearings.

MCCAUL: They're not. It's under this case law, the Flores decision and that's why Congress has to step up and change the law so when we apprehend somebody from Mexico, we can deport them immediately but not from Central America. That's ridiculous, right? So we need to fix that law. Where do they go? Well, a lot of these young men I've seen go join a family called MS-13. This is a public safety issue. It's a drug cartel issue and it's a potential terrorists issue as well.

BARTIROMO: Yes. And it's a really important point. I want to talk more about this Congressman. We are also hearing this morning of another chemical attack in Syria. We want to talk to you about how safe the homeland is. Stay with us, Chairman Michael McCaul. We're going to get your reaction to that attack against a hospital in Syria when we come right back. Stay with us.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. New reports this morning of a chemical attack on a hospital in Syria. In the besiege enclave outside of the capital of Damascus, rescue workers say dozens of people have been killed. President Trump reacted to this on Twitter this morning. He says this in part. If President Obama had crossed his stated red line in the sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago. Animal Assad would have been history. The president also says that Russia and Iran are responsible for keeping Assad in power. Once again I'm back with Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Chairman, what do you make of what we're learning this morning in Syria?

MCCAUL: Oh, it's a humanitarian crisis. It's barbaric. I've seen the photos. I think you just show these women and children in a hospital, this is a very deadly and brutal nerve agent that was barrel-bombed on the hospital, a very painful way to die and there has to be a consequence to this. And I think the president is absolutely right is that President Obama drew the redline, the red line was crossed he did nothing and then he negotiated through John Kerry the settlement, this weapons convention and I remember John Kerry saying we took all their chemical weapons away. Obviously not. They still have this and I also blame Russia and Iran. I think they're complicit with this as well.

BARTIROMO: Well, that's what I want to ask you about because this appears to be a real willful intentional attack to target women and children. We have some very disturbing video. I want to warn our audience right now this video is disturbing because it is children in the middle of all of this, this attack coming almost one year after the sarin gas attack in April of 2017, so leave, walk away from the T.V. if you don't want to see this because this is horrible. Mr. Chairman, what should the U.S. do in response to this at this point?

MCCAUL: Well I think we need a bold and swift response. The last time Assad did this we responded with 59 tomahawk missiles destroying his landing and air base capability so they could not deliver these barrel bombs. I think something similar to that but I think as the president said all options are on the table right now. And I think this is -- you know, look we're not -- we're not going to occupy countries anymore but this cannot stand in the civilized world and this needs to be responded to in a very firm strong way and I think we need to deal also with Russia and Iran's involvement with this. I think they are complicit and there are 42 people now dead and that's the latest count that I got, women and children, as a result of this. What I worry about too Maria, is that we saw a nerve agent killed a former Russian spy in London and these nerve agents, you know, the Russians violated their treaty as well and these nerve agents can be floating all around the world. I certainly don't want to see that end up here in the United States in the homeland.

BARTIROMO: Which is why people are saying Russia's fingerprints are on this because it's this nerve agent that apparently is from Soviet years. Should the president be taking a different task when -- as it relates to Russia and Vladimir Putin given what we're watching?

MCCAUL: Well, and he sanctioned the top oligarchs which I applauded. I think his rhetoric needs to get a little tougher against Russia. They're not our friend, Mr. Putin is not our friend. I think this whole -- I think they're all in bed together the Russians, the Iranians and Mr. Assad behind this horrific attack. It has their fingerprints all over it and I think there needs to be a bold, swift response of the military strikes to stop their capabilities to continue doing this.

BARTIROMO: Would you say we are safer here in America than in the past? How would you characterize the safety net today, given what we're talking about from the border security and the porous borders to what's happening in the Middle East?

MCCAUL: Well, when the BorderPpatrol tells me they can't -- they only apprehend less than 50 percent what's coming across that means more than 50 percent is coming in. And Maria, we don't know what it is and it could be people coming here to work that's probably drug cartels, MS-13. It could be a weapon of mass destruction being brought across by a terrorists. That's why securing that border I think is absolutely paramount and that we've done a good job keeping all this stuff out but there are plots underway as I speak to blow up airplanes using computer laptops, to toxic devices, using gasses, and if these nerve agents are in the hands of Assad, God knows where else they are.

BARTIROMO: Mr. Chairman, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much.

MCCAUL: Thank you so much, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate your time this morning, Congressman Michael McCaul. We will talk more about Syria coming up with Congressman Mac Thornberry, Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee. Are fears of a trade war with China overblown meanwhile just how can the Trump administration push the communist regime to level the economic playing field, major sell- off for stock prices last week. We're going to talk with somebody who knows Beijing's mind-set as well as anybody. Gordon Chang is with me up next as we look ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures' right now


LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Well, you know the list, it's dealing in technology or transferring technology, stealing our intellectual property rights. They have high tariffs they've got main barriers of not near enough market access for you know, foreign countries like the USA. So all that stuff has got to be discussed, negotiated and eventually changed. Look, end of the day, China's unfair and illegal trading actions are damaging to economic growth for the U.S., for China and the rest of the world. They are representing preventing a much stronger global economy and they're doing damage to American exports and you know, the President is the first guy with the backbone in decades, Maria, to actually go after it, not just whisper it but to go after it with at least preliminary actions.


BARTIROMO: That was part of my interview with National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow on Thursday on 'Mornings with Maria' over on the Fox Business Network. Just a short time ago the President tweeted about this and here's what he just said. President Xi and I will always be friends no matter what happens with our dispute on trade. China will take down its trade barriers because it is the right thing to do. Taxes will become reciprocal and a deal will be made on intellectual property. Great future for both countries. But fears of a looming trade war with China sent the markets plunging on Friday. By the close the Dow was down 572 points, the S&P 500 was down 58 points and the Nasdaq plunged 161 points in step with the massive volatility. For now it's still just a lot of tough talk on both sides of the Pacific so might the markets have it wrong. Is there hope Washington and Beijing can negotiate? Gordon Chang is the author of 'The Coming Collapse of China.' One of the experts on China and it is good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us, Gordon.


BARTIROMO: Is this the right attack that the president is taking?

CHANG: Oh, it's absolutely true. You've got to remember that what China is doing especially for the last six or seven years especially under Xi Jinping, the current ruler is become especially pernicious. They were closing off their markets, attacking foreign companies, also attacking domestic private companies. So you know, this is really Xi Jinping's emphasis on state enterprises and this is completely unsustainable. As the president said on Friday if he could ignore it but he wouldn't be doing his job so he's doing absolutely the right thing.

BARTIROMO: But the markets are getting nervous about this. They think this is going to result in a trade war. Initially, Peter Navarro, the Trade Director at the White House told me, we're not going to see a lot of reciprocation, we're not going to see Beijing come out and say that we want to tax you but we have seen that. That's what we are seeing. So is this the beginning of a trade war?

CHANG: Well, I think the trade war has gone on for a very long time, for decades but certainly it's a beginning of a tit for tat phase of that trade war and we're going to probably see more of it. If this were just a matter of economics, there would be no trade friction. The Chinese know that they would be overwhelmed by the United States, but this is not just a matter of economics, it's a matter of Chinese politics. Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler has accumulated absolute power or close to absolute power and that means he becomes responsible for everything. If you have a problem in a trade with the United States, he knows that he's got to intimidate us so he's going to use all these power and authority to go after us so this could get ugly.

BARTIROMO: Look, the president said, I never said there was not going to be pain. There may be short-term pain but long term, we're going to be in a better position as a country. So right now, I know that China has like ten industries out there that they are off limits to foreigners. You can't even get 49 percent and if you do end up getting a position in a foothold in China, you can only own 49 percent of a joint venture. Is that the kind of restrictions you want to see in the U.S. because I know you're a free markets guy. So how much of the government bite do you want to see here?

CHANG: Well I think we have to have some reciprocal relations which means if they put a tariff of 25 percent on our cars, our tariffs have to go up to 25 percent.

BARTIROMO: Right now it's 25 percent versus 2.5 percent. It's nuts like that right?

CHANG: Yes, it makes no sense the deal that was negotiated in prior administrations. The other thing is its technology. The Chinese have been closing off their tech sector. We've got to do the same thing. It's really unfortunate. No one wants to do it but we're seeing I think a new attitude not only on the part of the Republicans, not only the part of the President but Democrats as well that we need to protect our tech start-ups and our tech companies because this is where the competition for China and the United States is going to be played out. Yes, trade is important, but it's going to be who owns 5G, quantum computing, quantum communications and artificial intelligence.

BARTIROMO: This is a really good point because I've got a report here that says that China has now been participating in up to 10 percent of venture capital deals in the United States. They're basically just putting their money there so that they could invest in these companies but ultimately get the secrets and the technology of some of the most important industries of tomorrow, like A.I., like robotics, like shipping, all of these things that are supposed to drive growth here.

CHANG: Yes, you know, absolutely. And you know, the Chinese have been doing this while they close off their market to ours and so this is just completely unreciprocal. The president talks about reciprocal trade relations. We're going to have to do something. We're going to have to work a little harder, sacrifice a little more because the president is fighting for the future of our country.

BARTIROMO: So is it just China that's really the bad actor here, because initially, the president came out with those steel and aluminum tariffs which caused a lot of debate about whether or not we should be you know, punishing all of the jobs of the companies that input aluminum and steel to save the two aluminum and steel industries.

CHANG: Yes, the Section 232 tariffs which you're talking about are essentially I think a national security issue meant really to protect the U.S. industrial base because we're not taking a lot of the steel and aluminum that the Defense Department uses. And I know this is a long-term concern and I know that it's not defensible from a trade point of view, but from a national security one, I think we have to look at it in a different way.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will leave it there, Gordon. We'll be watching the developments. It's great to talk with you.

CHANG: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Gordon Chang joining us there. We're going to take a break and when we come back, reports of a horrific chemical attack against innocent civilians in Syria this morning. Rescue workers say dozens of people have been murdered overnight. Should that influence the President's decision to withdraw our military from Syria within months as he has discussed recently? I'm going to talk with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry next as we look ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures,' back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump is responding this morning to an alleged chemical attack in Syria, targeting a hospital and an enclave east of Damascus that reportedly killed dozens of civilians. The President tweeting a short while ago saying this atrocity saying this. Many dead, including women and children in mindless chemical attack in Syria area of atrocity, is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian army making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia, and Iran are responsible for backing animal, Assad. President Trump has indicated he would ideally like to bring U.S. troops in Syria home within a six-month period. Last week on 'Sunday Morning Futures,' retired Four Star General Jack Keane had this warning about leaving Syria too soon.


JACK KEANE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL MILITARY ANALYST: How we end a war is actually more important than how we begin it. You've got to not just win the conflict of the war, Maria. You've got to win the peace that follows after that and that's about stability and recovery. If we don't, I guarantee you, guarantee, that ISIS will re-emerge and it will be another jolt in the arm and their barbarism will start all over again.


BARTIROMO: General Jack Keane with me last Sunday, joining me right now is House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, Republican from Texas. Mr. Chairman, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: First your reaction to what has taken place in Syria this morning.

THORNBERRY: These people are butchers and not only do they use chemical weapons to kill people, they prevent any humanitarian aid from going into help them after the attack. Remember this happened just about exactly a year ago and President Trump responded with a limited military strike against those Syrian military units that carried out those attacks and it's been better over the last year. There have been fewer attacks and small scale. There's only one language that these people understand.

BARTIROMO: Well, let's talk about that because this comes almost one year after the horrific sarin gas attack in April of 2017. The president was very clear in that last tweet saying Russia and Iran support Assad, pointing the finger at Russia and Iran. What should the president do in response?

THORNBERRY: Well, as I say, I think a limited military strike against those units that carry out these attacks should definitely be considered just as he did a year ago. But this is part of a broader pattern when you look at Russia. Remember, they're the ones that had the targeted assassinations with using biological agents in Britain and now, they are standing by propping up Assad while dozens if not more people are wiped out using these chemical weapons. So it is essential that there be a united front against these sorts of tactics whether they're targeted assassinations or whether they're this widespread like we're seeing in Syria.

BARTIROMO: If Russia wants to be part of the international community and says they want to be friends with the U.S., why is Russia supporting Iran and Syria?

THORNBERRY: Because Russia is looking to advance its interest no matter what the cost and no matter who gets hurt. And that's why our strength, especially our military strength is absolutely essential for pushing back against Russia and what they're trying to do in various places against the world.

BARTIROMO: And we've got military strength right now at the borders. Congressman, I want to ask you about this because it's been a tough week for the military. We know that you and your colleagues just put forth this $1.3 trillion omnibus and you agreed to all of this spending because you needed to get money for the military because the military has been pummeled as a result of sequestration under the Obama years. What is your take on the National Guards men and women right now on the southern border?

THORNBERRY: Well, under both Bush and Obama the National Guard was sent into the border not on the front lines but to support the border patrol. I guess I have two takes. Number one is, it's time to resource the border patrol appropriately so we don't have to keep pulling the military in to fill up the holes. I don't understand why we can't give the border patrol the people and the resources they need. Secondly though, while it's appropriate I think for the National Guard to be this backstop, the question is who pays? As you pointed out, we just approved a military budget that begins to fix our planes and ships and things, but if you just look at the last three and a half weeks we've had six major military aviation mishaps that have cost the lives of 16 service members, so if you take money away from fixing our planes and ships and training and use it for other missions, then we're not going to meet some of those essential military needs. So I'm fine if it's paid for by Homeland Security or something else but I'm against taking money away from what we've got to do to repair our military for these other missions.

BARTIROMO: I don't understand this. This is a $47 trillion budget over ten years. The Pentagon gets $7 trillion. They can't come up with 25 billion for a wall that the President has been talking about for so long and that so many along with the Commander-in-Chief agree is necessary?

THORNBERRY: Maria, before that bill last, we are in March. We were spending 20 percent less on our military that was spent eight years ago and the world is not 20 percent safer. And just think about what's happened with Russia invading Crimea and ISIS and Syria and what the North Koreans are doing. The list goes on and on. Even after this bill, we're still ten percent below where we were eight years ago and spending for the military. And again, look at what's happened. Just this past week, we've had four major accidents where service members have lost their lives, either because of the training or because of the status of the equipment. It'll take a while to get to the exact cause, but the basic point is if we're going to ask men and women to go out there and risk their lives for us, they deserve the very best equipment, the very best training our nation can provide and they have not been getting it.

BARTIROMO: Yes, you've got agreement here that's for sure. Mac Thornberry, it's good to see you, Sir. Thanks so much.

THORNBERRY: Thank you, ma'am.

BARTIROMO: Thank you for joining us Mr. Chairman. And then there's this. Facebook's number two executive suggests in an interview Friday that users should have to pay to keep their information private. You want to keep your information private? Fine, pay up. Was this the business model all along? What should the Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg expect when he faces lawmakers this upcoming week? Our panel is on it as we look ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures' next.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Big week in the week ahead. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg preparing to testify before Congress this week where he could face tough questions about his company's privacy practices. Mary Kissel is an Editorial Board Member of the Wall Street Journal, Jason Chaffetz is former Republican Congressman of Utah and a Fox News Contributor. Good to see you both. Thank you so much for joining us.

MARY KISSEL, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Jason let me kick it off with you. If you were in that seat still, what would you be asking Mark Zuckerberg next week?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: I think America has come to the realization that there's a product, not the actual consumer, and I think that will be driven home by questions particularly about privacy and I think there are going to be a lot of questions about minors. If you're a 12-year-old, how do you sign a user agreement and how is it that Mark Zuckerberg is profiting by you know, putting out there the information about 12-year-olds?

BARTIROMO: Well what happened last week really struck me, Mary Kissel, because you had Sheryl Sandberg, the number two person at the company saying oh, we don't have an opt-out feature at the highest level. In other words, if you want your data protected, well then you're going to have to pay up for it because you can't just opt out for it.

KISSEL: Yes, Sheryl Sandberg is giving a new meaning to a tin ear. I mean, talk about a tin ear here, at least she saved us from a Mark Zuckerberg presidential run which I think is finally over. Look Facebook mines user data in order to give you products and services. That's how they make money, that's their business model. It's been their business model for many years. They've more than two billion users, that's a lot of data. I think America is just waking up to how Facebook operates. Now, whether or not there is actual harm here is another question. And Sheryl Sandberg who's very careful to say you give us our data, we're not going out there and harvesting it. Really, Maria, what she's saying is if we're not going to be allowed to harvest that data or we're going to be constrained by regulation. We've got to make up that revenue somewhere else and that means you, the user, if you want a total opt out.

BARTIROMO: That sounds so arrogant to me. Jason, let me ask you. I know you're a free markets guy, Mary is a free markets woman but do you want to see more regulation on these companies? They're more powerful today than they have ever been. We know that.

CHAFFETZ: I do think Americans have -- they have an expectation of privacy and if you want to opt out and be private, you know, there's nothing in their model that prohibits me posting about somebody else and then suddenly that person's information is there. And I do think the other thing that they're going to get a lot of questions about are is Facebook and its algorithms, are they targeting conservatives, are they targeting certain people to limit what they're able to see and how they're able to communicate, use their First Amendment rights on this platform.

BARTIROMO: This is really an important point. Congress is worried about this. I know that Mary because they're deciding what we see.

KISSEL: That's true. But again, it's their business model. I think the question is regulators is should Facebook be regulated or held liable for user-generated content? They haven't been held liable to date. And look, there's nothing -- well-crafted regulation simply doesn't exist. It would have been better for Facebook to better notify its users now they're subject to the whims of Congress. I think they deserve what they get.

BARTIROMO: Real quick. You think the president should act on this serious --

KISSEL: I think the President has to act on Syria, the U.S. has to establish some kind of fact on the ground in Syria, and you're not going to get rid of terrorism without getting rid of Assad. That's a fact. The President thinks he can separate the two. You can't.

BARTIROMO: Mary Kissel, Jason Chaffetz, great to see you both Have a great week everybody. I'll see you next Sunday right here.

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.