Rep. Reschenthaler: What I want to hear from Mueller is already in the report
House Judiciary committee member Rep. Guy Reschenthaler looks ahead to Robert Mueller's hearing on Capitol Hill.
This is a rush transcript from "Your World," July 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Well, getting ready for the grilling, as Washington ramps up the spending. That's because everyone is focusing on Bob Mueller preparing to testify before Congress tomorrow, not so much on Washington spending like there is no tomorrow, a lot more debt and right now a lot more worries.
So, while Mueller may be on the hot seat, taxpayers may just be getting hot and bothered. That includes you.
And we are on top of both, which would include you.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.
More on that big spending measure in a moment.
First to Catherine Herridge on that big hearing, and the attorney general, William Barr, now weighing in on that -- Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Neil. And good afternoon.
A short time ago, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee put out a statement about the Democrats making a surprise add for tomorrow's hearing. And the key line is buried at the bottom, saying that the move could jeopardize tomorrow's session.
Aaron Zebley is counsel for Robert Mueller and, according to the Republican statement, could advise him privately and simultaneously testify alongside him. We're told the late add may violate House rules about notification.
And a lawyer also acting as a sworn witness is a gray area. The Collins statement says -- quote -- "A last-minute addition to the witness list would now jeopardize whether tomorrow's hearing complies with the rules of the House. This appearance stunt is unsurprising, in light of the Democrats' repeated attempts to circumvent, misrepresent and flout the rules and procedures governing this committee's business."
Also, a senior Justice Department official sending the former special counsel a letter formally advising him to limit his public testimony to the report and his statement about two months ago, after the report was complete.
It reads in part -- quote -- "Should you testify," because it's Mueller's decision as a private citizen, "the department understands that testimony regarding the work of the special counsel's office will be governed by the terms you outlined on May 29, specifically, that the information you discuss during your testimony appears in and doesn't go beyond the public version of your March 22, 2019, report to the attorney general or your May 29 public statements."
So in layman's terms, that means no classified information, no grand jury material, nothing about the redacted portions of the report and, more significantly, nothing more about what they call uncharged third parties. In this case, it's a broad exemption that also includes the president of the United States.
Speaking to FOX News earlier today, Attorney General William Barr said Mueller had asked the department to get specific about the boundaries.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, as you know, at his press conference, Bob had said that he intended to stick with the public report and not go beyond that. And in conversations with the department, his staff was reiterating that that was their position.
And they asked us for guidance in writing to explain or to tell them what our position was. So we responded in writing. The department sent the guidance they had requested.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: A lot can happen between now and tomorrow morning, because, as you know, Neil, 16 hours is an eternity when it comes to this particular story.
CAVUTO: All right, to put it mildly.
Catherine Herridge, thank you very much.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
CAVUTO: So, if Mueller is saying now, right now, that he's going to stick to script, then where does that leave things?
Former federal prosecutor Jon Sale.
What do you think, Jon?
JON SALE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Neil, this testimony tomorrow has been called the most anticipated event in decades.
And I think it's going to be similar to when Geraldo opened the safe, for those who recall that. It's going to be a huge disappointment. Guess what? Big surprise. Bob Mueller is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do.
The statement from the Department of Justice or from the attorney general, Mueller requested it. So they're not muzzling him. He asked for guidance. He's going to do what a responsible prosecutor does. And he's going to stick to what he put in the public record.
Doing anything else would be very dangerous and very reckless.
CAVUTO: So if he is asked to elaborate a little bit more on neither deciding one way or the other on obstruction of justice, how does he handle that? Sticking to script is one thing, but he leaves it open-ended in the report itself.
SALE: Well, I think he handles that by saying that what, I wrote in the report is as far as I can go, because there are certain privileges.
And one of them is the deliberative process privilege, which is referenced in the letter from the Department of Justice. And you know who invoked that? Eric Holder. And he was held in contempt in spite, and he stuck to his guns.
It's -- prosecutors just can't talk publicly about why they did certain things. It would just be a dangerous precedent. And I have read that -- heard that both sides are practicing how to ask him questions.
I would hope that representatives would be able to ask pointed questions directed at the report, and not use their four minutes to make speeches.
CAVUTO: Jerry Nadler was commenting on this, reacting to the so-called DOJ letter. I want you to react to this, Jon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y., HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I think it's incredibly arrogant to the department to try to instruct him as to what to say. It's part of the ongoing cover-up by the administration to keep information away from the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: Well, Jon, isn't it Mueller himself who's limiting himself to just the report?
SALE: Mueller is restricting himself. He asked for the guidance.
And the guidance -- I think Mueller would have done exactly what the letter says without it. He's following the law, and he's accepting appropriate privileges.
The Congress has their appropriate Article 1 power and jurisdiction. If they want to pursue impeachment, that's up to them, but they don't need Mueller's report or Mueller's testimony. They can subpoena witnesses, and they can do their own inquiry if they think it's appropriate. This is grandstanding.
And it's -- I think it's going to be a colossal disappointment.
CAVUTO: All right,now, most Americans, as you and I have discussed, Jon, haven't read the report like you have. So a lot of this will be news to them, these revelations or comments that come out of Mr. Mueller in the hearing tomorrow, the two hearings.
And I'm wondering whether that, you think -- I know you're coming from this view of a lawyer looking at this -- whether that will move the needle one way or the other.
SALE: Well, I think that I -- as a citizen, I would love him to answer every questions in the world, because I'm curious.
But it's just not going to happen, because what they want really is -- people have said, well, rather than read the book, or it's hard to read the book, here is going to be the movie.
And that's theatrics. That is show business. That's media hype. We're just not going to get it. I mean, it's going to get a huge audience in the beginning. And then I think people are going to fall asleep or put down the remote to go to the soap operas.
CAVUTO: Well, who knows.
Jon, thank you very much, Jon Sale.
SALE: You're welcome.
CAVUTO: Well, everyone, of course, focusing on this grilling.
No one seems at all worried about the government spending, this from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a short time ago on this debt deal:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: We think it was the best possible deal under the circumstances. When you have divided government, both sides have a seat at the table, and both sides have the ability to tank an agreement. We all rose above that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right, by the way, that's not the only thing rising, though.
Try $320 billion in new spending beyond the caps that were already in place. So should we be concerned about that?
The Washington Examiner's Tiana Lowe. We have got Turning Point USA's Rob Smith, Democratic strategist Kristen Hawn.
You could go ahead all day, Tiana, and blame both parties for this excess. They have accepted a deal mutually repulsive, and, at the same time, welcome to both sides. So it keeps the government lights on for a couple of years. But it is getting to be a lot of red ink. What do you think?
TIANA LOWE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: No one's looking at the fundamental feature of our future projected spending that is contributing to what's amounted to be an extra $16 trillion of a deficit budget in the next decade; $11 trillion of that is coming from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
So how do Republicans respond when Democrats want to expand Social Security that will become insolvent in the next 15 years? They say, hey, we will just tack on another entitlement in the form of a paid family leave program to Social Security.
So, I mean, I just think like the whole Tea Party promise, Republicans have shown that they're deeply unserious about fulfilling that promise. At least Democrats admit that they want to take and spend your money.
CAVUTO: Well, Rob, we are at the point now where we're looking at trillion-dollar deficits, not only this year, but next year, likely the year after that. It's going at a pace that now exceeds that of the prior administration.
And this president has been bashing that administration for accumulating debt. It does seem to be sort of like a bipartisan bent here. What do you make of it?
ROB SMITH, TURNING POINT USA: Well, I'm really glad you said that.
For me, I guess I look at it very positively. Everything is so polarized. Everybody's arguing back and forth. I love it when people can come together to do something, even if it does mean spending massive amounts of money.
I understand why people on the left are mad about this. I understand why some conservatives have some pause. But when I look at what's going on here, I really look at two things. As a veteran, I will always be a major proponent of defense spending.
And when you think about the defense spending, everybody thinks about making the fighter jets stronger and the tanks and all that stuff. But it's really supporting not only our veterans, but our active-duty troops.
The president actually talked to the largest group of a conservative team today in Washington, D.C. He brought up the spending that we're doing for the military. And he brought up something, the VA Choice Act. I don't think a lot of people know a lot about that.
This is something that helps veterans get private care when they do not live close to a VA facility. So when we're spending money on this, I think that's a good thing. It's always a good thing to keep America strong.
And the second really good thing about this bill is that it helps them reprogram funds for the border wall. If you have ever been to a Trump rally, if you have ever been to a Trump speech, if you have ever talked to Donald Trump supporters, they want that wall.
And I think that, if this bill passes, if it gets the votes that it needs, we will be able to get more funding for the wall as well, because he's going to have the opportunity to reprogram funds for the wall without restrictions.
CAVUTO: You know, Kristen, you can look and point fingers at who is abusing the spending privileges or not.
And I guess, to Rob's point, I mean, the fact that these party heads decided to deal with this the way they dealt with it, maybe not showing the most fiscal zeal to get it under control, they got it out of the way. And I'm wondering what you make of that?
SMITH: Yes.
KRISTEN HAWN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes.
And I think a pox on everybody's houses, let's be clear about that, both Democrats and Republicans. It's really hard to rein in spending, and deficit spending is growing faster now than it ever has before.
But we have to remember that lot of this was about honoring the money and honoring our debts and the money we have already spent. So I think that's something that absolutely has to get done. And Republicans and Democrats know that it has to get done for the good of our economy.
But I think folks are right. Whenever we have to raise the debt limit, which we do, Republicans and Democrats on the far right and the far left, they love to point fingers and talk about under which presidency the debt raised more.
And the fact of the matter is, it's everybody's fault, and that the tax cuts costs money. They add to the deficit. Republicans need to understand that. Democrats also have to prioritize domestic spending.
So I think it's -- everybody's got to come together and deal with entitlements, like I think one of the panelists said before, and discretionary spending, or else nothing's ever going to happen.
So both sides need to get serious.
CAVUTO: Good luck on all of that.
HAWN: Yes, I know.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: I want to thank you all very, very much here.
A quick peek at the corner of Wall and Broad. Stocks were in record territory for a while today, the Dow finishing just shy of it, up 177 points, a lot of it on the heels of a report right now that we are flying a delegation over to China to get hopping on this China trade deal.
No indications what will come of that, but just the thought that it could happen was enough to get people pretty excited.
And that 9/11 compensation measure has now passed the Senate 97-2. The fallout from that, with a measure that the president is expected to sign, maybe by day's end.
More after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: Everyone's been focused, what's he's going to do about Brexit, Brexit, Brexit? But right now, the next 48, 72 hours, it's all about Iran, isn't it?
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Absolutely right. Critical to world stability right now and to Great Britain's standing in the world is, what's he going to do about the fact that the Islamic republic of Iran has taken control of a British tanker without cause?
CAVUTO: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: That was former Democratic Senator, vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman on my FOX Business show talking about the pressures now being faced by the new British prime minister, who assumes office tomorrow, Boris Johnson, and that everyone has been so focused on what he does about Brexit, that they lost sight of the fact that the immediate concern is how to get back that U.K. oil tanker.
Let's go to Jennifer Griffin with the latest from the Pentagon.
Hey, Jennifer.
JENNIFER GRIFFIN, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.
Well, we have just received a statement from a CENTCOM spokesperson, Lieutenant Colonel Earl Brown, who says that, in fact, the U.S. officials do believe that they -- that they brought down two Iranian drones by that U.S. warship transiting the Strait of Hormuz last Thursday, not one, as originally reported.
Crew on board the USS Boxer saw one drone go down in the water. They saw the splash. The other disappeared from radar and was thought destroyed.
CBS first quoted the head of U.S. Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, who said there may have been more. Both drones were taken out by this new Marine Corps anti-drone jamming device strapped to the deck of the USS Boxer without firing a shot, frying the drones' electronics.
New satellite images show that British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero as it was circled by an Iranian fast boat, and now held in the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. Iran's foreign minister says his country seized the tanker after it hit a fishing boat. The vessel's parent company pushed back -- quote -- "We can confirm that we are not aware of and nor is there any evidence of a collision involving the Stena Impero."
The 23 crew members aboard a British oil tanker continue to be detained by Iranian forces for a fifth day. Britain says it is joining European allies to form a maritime protection mission -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Jennifer, thank you very, very much.
So now what is the new prime minister of the United Kingdom to do here?
Nile Gardiner, the former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on that.
I guess this is more of an immediate issue for Boris Johnson. What do you think?
NILE GARDINER, FORMER ADVISER TO BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: It is.
I think the Iran issue is going to be the very first issue that the new prime minister, Boris Johnson, has to deal with. Of course, the bigger issue looming in the background is the Brexit issue. But immediately on his desk, he's going to have to deal with the Iran situation.
And you have a British-flagged vessel that is being detained by Iran. You have 23 sailors who have been held hostage by the Iranians. This is a completely unacceptable situation. And you need to see very firm British action being taken.
And, unfortunately, Theresa May has been incredibly weak-kneed on this -- on this front so far, and the new prime minister has to demonstrate some real resolve and leadership. And I would like to see Britain joining with the United States actually in taking clear action here in the defense of the waterways of the Strait of Hormuz.
And this idea that there's going to be some sort of European coalition guarding the waterways, I think, is sort of pie in the sky right now, because the Europeans are simply lacking the willpower to do anything, nor, in most cases, do they actually have the military power to do so.
And it's time for the United States and the United Kingdom, I think, to work together here to take action against the Iranians. So the new prime minister has to demonstrate real leadership, completely break away from Theresa May's failed policies on Iran.
Britain needs to get out of the JCPOA, Iran nuclear deal agreement, and enforce sanctions against Iran alongside the United States. We do need...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: But they have to be more than just sanctions, right?
I mean, the reason why -- you worked for Maggie Thatcher. And she raised eyebrows and just startled folks around the world where -- her response to the Falklands and Argentina claiming that those islands were theirs, and she went to war over it.
Now, the appetite might have been there, because she rallied the nation around the injustice of that, and said that it was something that had to be done. Times are different now, aren't they?
GARDINER: Well, I think the reality is that the Iranian regime, which is a barbaric, terrorist dictatorship, has used piracy against Great Britain here.
There has been no British response yet. And we need see more British warships defending shipping there. We need to see the Iranians handing over this British-flagged tanker. It's completely unacceptable.
And the next time the Iranians dare to even consider this sort of action, there should be the threat of a British military response against any Iranian vessel that threatens a British ship. The British must be prepared to defend that vessel.
We need to have a robust British military presence in the strait in order to do so. There's only one frigate there right now. There's a destroyer on the way.
CAVUTO: All right.
GARDINER: We need to see more British -- British battleships there.
We cannot allow this kind of barbaric intimidation and piracy by the Iranian regime. This simply is unacceptable.
CAVUTO: All right. We will see what Boris Johnson does, but it is going to be his first act, one way or the other, that will precede even how to deal with Brexit.
Thank you, Nile, very, very much.
All right, well, I will see your 15. How about I raise you to 20? One lawmaker's minimum wage push, despite warnings of maximum pain -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, who says it stopped at $15 an hour?
The fight over hiking the minimum wage raging again, with freshman Democrat Rashida Tlaib calling for a $20-an-hour minimum wage. The Congressional Budget Office saying that a minimum wage of $15 an hour would cost about 1.3 million Americans their jobs.
We got Lizzy MacDonald with us, Democratic strategist Capri Cafaro, GOP strategist Justin Sayfie.
Justin, end with you, begin with you, on the impact of this if it were to come to be?
JUSTIN SAYFIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I don't understand what the Democrats want to put so many Americans out of work.
We have a growing economy. We have record number of people that are being employed. And this proposal would certainly cost thousands, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs in the U.S. And that doesn't make any sense.
So, we have -- we got to keep -- do everything we can to keep this economic expansion growing. Doesn't make any sense.
CAVUTO: I don't know how many more, Capri, have gotten on board with this and join the congresswoman. They're still pushing for the $15 wage on a national basis, a federal level.
CAPRI CAFARO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Sure. And they passed that in Congress.
CAVUTO: Right.
CAFARO: Or they passed -- the House passed that bill.
CAVUTO: Where do you think that is going?
The House passed it, right.
CAFARO: I -- certainly, I don't think it's going to the United States Senate. It's not going to pass.
Now, I take a little bit more of a measured approach to this, Neil, as you probably are not surprised with. I try to analyze things in a logical manner. And while I think we can all acknowledge that there are thousands, if not millions of Americans that are trying to support their family on one, two or three minimum wage jobs, I think we also need to acknowledge that there are regional differences when it comes to the standard of living.
What -- a place like New York may need $15- or $20-an-hour minimum wage, but a place like Ohio made need $10 an hour. Small businesses are also -- could also be disproportionately impacted.
So I would say it needs to be decided regionally as far as minimum wage increases. And I think that small businesses need to be exempt under 50 employees.
Now, the big boys like Walmart, that's a whole different story. Those guys need to pay more and give more hours, so they're not -- so their employees are not relying on things like Medicaid and the tax dollars, because those multinational corporations can afford it.
CAVUTO: But, Lizzy, didn't we see in even the Bernie Sanders campaign itself, when there was a concern that it was not paying at that $15 level, it has now essentially agreed to do so, but will have to cut back people's hour.
Now, isn't that part of the problem?
ELIZABETH MACDONALD, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that is part of the problem.
That CBO, Congressional Budget Office, said, you raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, up to 3.7 million jobs will be lost. It did say it's hard to tell how the U.S. economy and the companies in the U.S. economy would react.
We have anecdotal evidence of seeing companies are laying off workers when that one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach does go into effect.
Certainly, in Rashida Tlaib's home district in Michigan, you would possibly see job losses. The Restaurant Association, a lot of the workers there could see their jobs cut.
We saw that with Amazon. When Amazon raised its minimum wage, what did it do? It started to cut bonuses. It started to cut stock-based pay, and it moved more to robots.
So a lot of these people on the left like to cite the Nordic countries as their socialist models. The Nordic countries do not, do not have a minimum wage. We're talking Sweden, Finland and Denmark. It's a one-size-fits-all approach that's not working.
There's different costs of living in different parts of the country. So the federal approach, top-down approach, might be the wrong way to go for the U.S. economy.
CAVUTO: Well, as Capri pointed out, Justin, I mean, the House passed this $15 federal minimum wage. It's not going anywhere to the Senate, but they were willing to accept the standard rate for everybody, without distinctions in being in cheaper parts of the country, or kids vs. adults, that kind of thing.
But leaving that aside, I'm wondering if Republicans then look like they're fighting this. And, again, I should stress that the congresswoman is among a couple just even mentioning this figure. Is it a big issue for them at all?
SAYFIE: Well, I think Republicans can rightfully say they're protecting jobs. They're protecting the economic growth that's taking place under this president, under this administration.
And I think that's a good argument to take to the people. The American people understand we want to keep jobs growing. We don't want to kill jobs. We don't want to send jobs offshore overseas. And that's what this $20-an-hour minimum wage proposal would do.
So I think the Republicans have a strong argument to the American people to say, we're about growing more jobs in the U.S. We want more people working in the U.S., and not going overseas for cheaper -- for cheaper labor.
CAVUTO: All right, guys, I want to thank you all very, very much.
CAFARO: Thank you.
CAVUTO: We're waiting for breaking news here and getting more on what might be shone upon us when Bob Mueller testifies before two different committees in the House tomorrow.
Indications are, he's going to try to stick to script. What does that mean?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: You're looking at a live presser going on right now in Washington, D.C.
It took a lot of fighting back and forth, but the United States Senate has approved by a vote of 97-2 to extend the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund.
The fallout from that -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, they're going to try to get him off his talking points, but Robert Mueller is expected, will try to stick to the script tomorrow when answering questions for the first time since the release of his report.
To House Judiciary Committee member Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Guy Reschenthaler.
Congressman, good to have you.
REP. GUY RESCHENTHALER, R-PENN.: Thanks for having me on, Neil.
CAVUTO: What do you want to hear out of Mr. Mueller?
RESCHENTHALER: Well, what I want to hear is already in the report, and that is that there was no obstruction, no collusion
Now, Mueller himself has said that he's not going to go beyond the report. So I expect that we just hear this again, no obstruction, no collusion.
CAVUTO: So he didn't say unequivocally that there weren't grounds to exonerate the president as well.
So I'm wondering, Democrats will try to pounce on that and instances of what would appear to be obstruction of justice-type conduct. How far do you think that gets?
RESCHENTHALER: Well, I don't think it's getting the Democrats very far.
But what it's doing is, it's distracting the American people from the Democrats' far left radical agenda. As long as they're talking about Mueller, they're not talking about banning airplanes, giving illegal immigrants free health care.
They're not talking about their far left agenda. It's also distracting the American people from this red-hot economy, and the president finally holding China accountable.
CAVUTO: So when you hear and read the final report -- and very few people have read the report -- it's going to be news to most Americans, who, when they hear that the president was exonerated, in your words, on some of the other points on obstruction of justice...
RESCHENTHALER: Right.
CAVUTO: ... when, in fact, it wasn't that black and white, it just said that the Mueller folks decided that there wasn't enough compelling for or against.
A lot of Americans might not know that. And I'm wondering how you think that is received by the public.
RESCHENTHALER: Well, I think most Americans are ready to move past the Mueller report.
Mueller had over two years. He literally had millions of dollars at his disposal, and he wrote a report that was over 400 pages. I have read the entire report. I have read the redacted version of the report.
And nowhere in there is there collusion. Nowhere in there is there obstruction. The American people just want us to move beyond this and get to work solving real issues that face America.
CAVUTO: Do you think that Bob Mueller, Congressman, might have been saying, all right, I couldn't go so far as to make charges on obstruction, because a sitting president, et cetera, et cetera, but you, Congress, can; these are the crumbs I sprinkle for you; it's up to you if you want to -- want to do something with them?
RESCHENTHALER: You know, I can't speculate on what Mueller was thinking.
I can only tell you that he has said over and over everything that he is going to testify to tomorrow is in the four corners of that report. And nowhere in that report was there collusion or was there -- was there obstruction.
So I think we're just wasting time, frankly. I have said over and over on the committee that we're chasing ghosts. We should be doing something to solve the crisis at the southern border. We should be doing something to fight the opioid epidemic.
But, instead, we're just wasting time, like I said, chasing ghosts.
CAVUTO: So when you hear some of your colleagues say the Russians interfered in the election, to the degree that it influenced the election, do you want to hear out of Mr. Mueller just the opposite, that it did not, let's put that to rest?
RESCHENTHALER: Well, I do think we have to explore exactly what Russia did. And we have to hold them accountable.
In fact, there's two bills that are in front of the Judiciary Committee. One was introduced by John Ratcliffe, who's on the committee. The Democrats have done nothing to move these bills.
I'm also very focused on what led up to this investigation to begin with. We have to remember that the Obama administration weaponized the FBI to spy on a political campaign. That's really troubling to me, and that should be very troubling to the American people.
CAVUTO: Would it trouble you as well that the administration, this administration, might have been even talking innocently to the Russians?
RESCHENTHALER: I don't think that any of that impacted the election.
But really what troubles me is a president who politicized and weaponized the FBI. I'm also concerned about the upper echelons of the FBI that wanted a -- quote, unquote -- "insurance policy" in case this president were to be elected.
So I'm very troubled by a lot of what led up to this investigation. And that's where I want to focus.
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman, thank you.
It'll be interesting. We will see.
All right, that press conference continues in Washington. After much back and forth, by an overwhelming vote 97-2 in the United States Senate, the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund has been extended by an average of $2 billion a year, north of $10 billion over the course of that package here that will not put a limit on relief for thousands of workers who were affected by the dust and the debris and the noxious smoke and fumes from that fateful day.
They, their supporters are saying, were there when America needed them. America responds in kind.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON STEWART, FORMER HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": Today, it's about the heart, James Zadroga and Joe, and the integrity of Ray Pfeifer, and the courage of Lou Alvarez, and the tenacity of John Feal.
They -- they lifted this 9/11 community on their shoulders. And they carried them home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: And it is now done, save a presidential signature that indicates support that the 9/11 condition -- victims funds will now not be depleted and will be restored and will last for a good decade, at a minimum here, and beyond, if necessary.
Chad Pergram on the vote that went down a short time ago in the United States Senate -- Chad.
CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, you don't see many votes this overwhelming, Neil.
It was 97-2, only two nays, both from Republican senators, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. They said, we want to help these 9/11 victims. But they were concerned at the fact that this fund could go until 2090.
It's been a very emotional day here on Capitol Hill, as they finally lugged this across the finish line.
I'm going to read something to you here from Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, what he said about this just a few minutes ago on the floor.
He said -- quote -- "We are now at the very end of a long struggle. But the struggle doesn't end for those who are sick or those who might get sick. And for their families, at least we are giving them some help, help because they gave us so much help on that horrible day, 9/11."
President Trump has indicated that he will sign this bill. We don't know when that's going to come. But, remember, the House of Representatives passed this overwhelmingly a couple of weeks ago.
And, again, this concern about the overall cost of this, I tried to ask the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, about that. These were two amendments that Senators Lee and Rand Paul had designed to say, let's try to cut some of this funding. Let's try to be responsible, from their vantage point.
And Mitch McConnell wanted no part of my question. He basically said, we're going to be compassionate, and we're going to help those who worked on the pile shortly after 9/11, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Chad, thank you very, very much.
And just to spell this out, this provides $10.2 billion in funding over 10 years, including the roughly $4 billion for claims already filed. And this is something that has grown exponentially larger in the process.
You might recall 340 New York City firefighters died on September 11. Shortly thereafter, 200 more would perish from illnesses contracted at ground zero.
There are reports that better than 16,000 could be eligible for claims being processed now. And, again, as Chad indicated, this will go to the president's desk, where he is expected to sign it.
GOP pollster Lee Carter with me right now.
When you think of the votes, Lee, in the House, it was 402-12, in the Senate, 97-2. Arguing about costs is something just fell on deaf ears.
LEE CARTER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: You know, we said this is something that we can all agree on, and almost.
I mean, the fact that Rand Paul and Mike Lee could not sign this bill, to me, is devastating. It's -- this is something we should all agree on. And I understand ideology. I understand saying we have to be able to afford the things that we're putting out there.
But this isn't -- this isn't the sword to die on. And this now gives Democrats a way to say, look, another reason why Republicans are heartless.
And that's not what we want to have. We want these people to be taken care of in perpetuity. They did things for us that we can't even imagine. If we can't run in and help them here, when they ran into literally save our lives on 9/11, then we have got -- we have got big problems.
CAVUTO: And it's a case of bad timing with them, too, however you feel on this subject, because they just wrote off on a debt measure that extends deficits for as long and wide as the eye can see, and trillion-dollar-plus ones, at that.
CARTER: Exactly.
I mean, die on the sword you should be, not on this one. That's -- I don't understand. I understand that they're contrarian. I understand that they -- they have their ideals that they need to stand to. But this isn't one that I think is going to help or...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Rand Paul and I talked about this. He said: "I am not blocking anything. I'm simply seeking ways to pay for it."
And, again, that might make sense on paper. You're looking at the numbers of money going in and out, that anything we commit ourselves to, if it is that important, we should be able to balance it out on something else. But that again fell on deaf ears.
CARTER: It falls on deaf ears, but, at the same time, now we know exactly where Rand Paul stands.
Everybody will now know and forever will know that Rand Paul is the one that says we're going to pay for everything, and we're going to be able to pay for everything we put forward. There's going to be no exceptions, not even something as...
CAVUTO: And, for him, that's actually a good strategy, right?
But...
CARTER: For him personally, I think it is a good strategy, because now he will be known as something.
CAVUTO: Right.
CARTER: Otherwise...
CAVUTO: Mike Lee as well.
CARTER: Yes. They will be known as something. Maybe it's responsible. Maybe it's heartless. But they will be known as something, rather than just one of the pack.
CAVUTO: But Republicans didn't want to go down as being opposed to something that just tugged on the nation's heartstrings or forgetting the fact, I think, as Jon Stewart and others were saying, these were people who didn't waste a nanosecond thinking about the risks they were doing for themselves, and money was never an issue.
CARTER: No.
I mean, do you want to be the people that are known for that, to say, we're voting against that?
I said -- I was making jokes earlier. I'm like, what are they going to be voting against, motherhood, puppies and apple pie next? I mean, it's just -- it's not the thing that they should be doing. I don't believe it's the right thing to do.
CAVUTO: All right, Lee Carter, thank you very, very much.
By the way, on Senator Rand Paul, he says: "As I have done on countless issues, including disaster relief and wall funding, I will always take a stand against borrowing more money to pay for programs, rather than settling -- setting priorities and cutting waste."
The message from their colleagues in the United States Senate was, this was bigger than that, much bigger.
We will have more after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, ICE is sort of doubling up the ante here, releasing new figures on its latest crackdown on legal immigrants, and, more importantly, the employers who hire them.
William La Jeunesse here to break down the numbers.
Hey, William.
WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE, CORRESPONDENT: Well, Neil, the first operation last week targeting 2,000 migrants nationwide resulted in only 35 arrests.
Now, officials believe it's publicity that surrounded that helped many avoid arrest, even though all had been ordered deported by a judge. Neighbors like you see here in L.A. and elsewhere use phone trees and lookouts to undermine the operation.
So ICE has accelerated their work site enforcement, issuing 3,200 notices to businesses, which usually force illegal labor to quit to avoid apprehension.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MATTHEW ALBENCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: We will pursue a whole host of charges in regard to illegal employment of aliens, to include tax fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, both against the company, as well as against the employee.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
LA JEUNESSE: In a second operation, ICE arrested 900 migrants, 700 with a criminal record.
As part of this crackdown, they will also now begin enforcing a 1996 law targeting recent immigrants not near the border, but in cities nationwide. Now, in the past, the agency had simply issued detainers from migrants mostly convicted of violent crimes.
Now, however, those arrested with, say, a DUI or a theft, domestic assault, they will become a priority. Democrats overwhelmingly supported expedited removal under Presidents Clinton and Obama. Now, however, many consider it harassment and, Neil, overreach -- back to you.
CAVUTO: William, thank you very, very much, William La Jeunesse.
When we come back: Elizabeth Warren unveiling a plan to eliminate student debt. The question is, who pays for that?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: Well, it took a while, but it is, should I say, almost done. All it needs is the president's signature after a 97-2 vote in the Senate.
And it was about a 402-12 vote in the House. The Victims Compensation Fund from 9/11 is going to be beefed up, to the point of about $10.2 billion over 10-year, on top of $4 billion to make good on claims already filed for the more than 16,000 who are going to benefit.
Let's go to Internet radio host Mike Gunzelman. We have also got the host of "Sincerely Kat" on FOX Nation, Kat Timpf.
Kat, we were talking about, whatever point you can make about trying to pay for everything, that this was, I think you were saying, not a hill worth dying on here. What do you make of that?
KATHERINE TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: Right.
I understand that these people are pretty consistent deficit hawks. And I'm somebody...
CAVUTO: That is Mike Lee and Rand Paul.
TIMPF: And I'm somebody who is also among them.
However, when you're talking about this issue, it's really not the best look to vote against this, especially when you know it's going to pass anyway. So I don't understand what their political angle is here.
People look at this and they -- it looks heartless. It looks absolutely heartless to vote against this, and to be the only two who vote against this.
MIKE GUNZELMAN, INTERNET RADIO HOST: I think it's just terrible optics all around coming from Rand Paul and Mike Lee and whatnot, because, let's be honest.
Out of all the issues, really, you're going to go after something with 9/11, who didn't choose to run into those towers to save people that are still -- after all these years, still being affected by it?
(CROSSTALK)
GUNZELMAN: That's not a good look. Seriously, that's not good. I mean, not this hill to go down on.
CAVUTO: And the timing is bad, as I was raising with Lee Carter...
GUNZELMAN: Awful.
CAVUTO: ... when they have got this two-year debt ceiling agreement that will include worsening the deficits by we're talking $330 billion over cuts that were already in place.
They have blown the caps off that.
GUNZELMAN: Yes.
CAVUTO: Now, I don't know how these gentlemen vote on that matter. But the fact of the matter is, they have wasted far, far more money. It's a rounding error.
GUNZELMAN: Yes.
It's good rhetoric to appease whatever base that you're going for. And I understand, obviously, the debt is getting out of control, clearly. But you have to pick and choose the correct issues to go about.
How about nothing with September 11 and people saving people's lives?
CAVUTO: I mean, what would -- what do you make -- when I talked to Rand Paul, and I mentioned what Lee Carter said, we're not blocking anything. We're simply seeking a way to pay for it.
And that is a consistent argument that both those senators, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, have made.
TIMPF: And I understand that, and that's consistent. And oftentimes I agree.
All I'm saying is, I can't really imagine a worse look, in terms of something that you're going to go about blocking. There are so many ridiculous things that our government spends money on. This is not one of those things.
GUNZELMAN: Yes.
CAVUTO: You wonder, too, though, would there have been a better way to frame that? In other words, we're all for this. We're going to vote for this.
If we find something else -- maybe it would have been powerful to say, we will take it out of defense, or we will take it -- you know what I mean?
GUNZELMAN: Right.
They -- clearly, they didn't really think it -- I really don't think they thought it out or thought that this would be -- how they didn't expect this type of backlash, when it's such a -- it's a no-brainer, when it really comes down to it, and when you're wasting so much money?
I mean, there's countless articles about how much and what the government waste things on, whether it's the salmon studies or...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: It's your generation that is going to be stuck with that.
TIMPF: Or all the lobster that the Department of Defense is eating, all this lobster. Maybe eat a turkey sandwich once in a while.
CAVUTO: But the one thing I think that resonated with me was, I think was Jon Stewart who said, these people didn't think for a second about coming out and doing whatever they could, knowing full well the dangers that were there.
GUNZELMAN: Right.
CAVUTO: And they did it without a second thought.
GUNZELMAN: And Jon Stewart, I mean, he is funny. I don't always agree with him politically, but he has really, really done a great job here.
Bottom line, he has really done a good job here protecting these people.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: I thought all of these guys were very powerful, just on emotional, gut level, to say, some things are bigger than just money. They're just -- just using your heart.
GUNZELMAN: Human decency. Human decency.
TIMPF: And if this isn't an example of that, then what is?
CAVUTO: Yes.
I remember, one of these guys said, would you do it again, knowing what you ran into? He said, in a second.
TIMPF: Wow.
CAVUTO: In a second.
GUNZELMAN: Yes.
CAVUTO: Guys, thank you very, very much.
Now it's just up to the president of the United States, who is expected to sign it. And, after all these years, there is help.
Here's "The Five."
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox