Rep. Royce talks arming of National Guard, future of Iran deal

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," July 19, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Governors of six states taking action to protect members of our arms forces following Thursday's shootings in Tennessee. Hi, everyone, I'm Maria Bartiromo, and this is "Sunday Morning Futures."

The National Guard called upon to protect communities, further sparking the debate over gun-free zones. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce on that and deterring home grown terror attacks in just a moment.

Plus, the Iran deal now in the hands of Congress, but any potential vote more than a month away. An expert on Iran's nuclear program, on whether we gave up too much to come to an agreement.

And have things hit a tipping point between Donald Trump and the Republican Party? Our panel on his comments about Senator John McCain, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures. "

This is not the son we knew. That is the message from the family of Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, the gunman in thus day's deadly attacks in Chattanooga. The family blaming depression and not radicalization for his actions. Actions that led to the deaths of these five brave men in uniform between two military recruitment centers. The attack shedding light on so- called gun-free zones, areas where military members and others cannot carry weapons.

Governors from these six states, Indiana, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas are now arming their National Guards. Georgia already allows the National Guard to arm themselves if they choose to. And Tennessee is looking into new changes to prevent another attack like these from happening. Congress is also expected to propose a bill overturning that ban this upcoming week.

California Congressman Ed Royce is with us this morning, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: So, governors are taking action across the country. What's your take on arming the National Guard in the wake of what we saw last week in Tennessee?

ROYCE: Yes, I think the governors are going to arm the National Guard. And now the question is, can we, in Congress, make certain that, you know, our Marines, when they're in a situation like this, have the ability to defend themselves. I think it's irrational that, you know, overseas they've got the ability to protect themselves, but here in the homeland, when you've -- when you know that these facilities are being targeted, that they do not. And so I think we will take up legislation to allow them to do so. Certainly in the wake of the loss of these four Marines and -- and one naval reservist, this -- this has been a tragedy for the country and is an example of the kind of attack we're under.

BARTIROMO: And, of course, all of those -- those five really wonderful servicemen were unarmed, were totally vulnerable. There weren't any soldiers or anyone outside who could have been armed to stop this person from entering the military sites. And we know that the Chattanooga gunman was blogging about Islam, showed increased signs of devotion. Are we doing enough to stop home grown terrorists?

ROYCE: Well, here we have a situation also where he took a half dozen trips to the Middle East. And at the same time, we're not doing enough against ISIS. There's no doubt about that. If the administration, if the president had allowed, as recommended, the attacks early on, on ISIS, the use of air power before they took these cities, before, as they were leaving Syria, to take -- to take Fallujah and then take Mosul. If he would have allowed the military to hit the ISIS units when they were on the open road out on the desert, they could have taken them out. Really damaged ISIS in the early -- in the early months of that campaign.

But the president sat by as 14 separate cities fell to ISIS. And as a result, ISIS took an enormous amount of territory, without us even being in the fight during the first year of that campaign to expand ISIS, and now they're recruiting all over the world to the detriment and danger of citizens not just here, but worldwide. So, yes, we should have done more and right now, three-quarters of the flights that are sent out to hit ISIS targets come back without dropping their munitions because they've got to go through Washington, D.C., to get an OK to hit ISIS targets.

BARTIROMO: Yes, and --

ROYCE: It's ridiculous the way we're -- this campaign is being carried out.

BARTIROMO: And, of course, this campaign included more air strikes over the weekend. We're going to talk about that. A lot to get to with you, Congressman Royce.

I also want to ask you about the Iran deal given the president has just sent it to Congress today. But first, let's put this week's heinous attacks in Chattanooga into some context. Fox News' senior correspondent Eric Shawn joins us with that angle.

Eric, good morning to you.

ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Maria, and, good morning, everyone.

Why do they apparently hate America? The so-called lone wolves may not be part of a conspiracy directly, but are inspired by the screeds of radical Islam that threaten our nation. Last week's shocking attack in Chattanooga is, sad to say, the latest assault on our country's values. The 25-year-old suspected shooter, a strangely smiling Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, may have suffered from depression, but is now the latest name on a tragically growing list.

Twenty-five years ago in the first radical Islamic terrorist attack on our soil, (INAUDIBLE) Rabbi Meir Kahane was shot at a New York City hotel. His killer first also called a lone gunman was later revealed to be a member of the New Jersey terror cell that two years later went on to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993.

The year after that, lone gunman Rashid Baz opens fire on a van of Chabad (ph) students on a Brooklyn bridge ramp, killing 16-year-old Ari Halberstam. In 1997, a Palestinian gunman opens fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building killing one and wounding six others.

And since then, our military recruiting centers and bases have been targeted. In 2009, Private William Long was killed as he stood outside the Little Rock, Arkansas, Army/Navy recruiting center. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad sentenced to life for that. Then, just five months later, Army Major Nadal Hasan opens fire at the Ft. Hood, killing 13 people. A terrorist attack the Obama administration long characterized as workplace violence.


RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: The lone wolf has become a pack of wolves. And the pack of wolves have a common ideology. It's called Muslim extremist terrorism. And that organizes them. That motivates them. And if you don't recognize that ideology and you create political correctness as a barrier, you find it really hard to find them.


SHAWN: Well, last week, the House Committee on Homeland Security passed a bill that would create a new department to address the lone wolf threat. It is called the Office for Countering Violent Extremism. While some liberal groups, though, criticize that effort as misguided and harmful, the committee's chairman, Republican Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas, says such an agency is desperately needed to protect us.


BARTIROMO: Eric, thank you. Eric Shawn with the latest there.

And we are, once again, with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce.

And, Mr. Chairman, what about that? I mean is there something else to do in terms of agencies, as Eric was just reporting, to further protect the American people from these lone wolf attacks?

ROYCE: Yes, I think Chairman Mike McCaul with Homeland Security is pursuing the right approach there. But I'm going to go back to the point, Maria, I made with you earlier, and that is, we have to see ISIS rolled back and defeated on the battlefield. There is no substitute for having -- having them have egregious losses out there in their efforts to take Syria and Iraq and Lebanon and Jordan. As you know, they have been, you know, able with impunity to carry out a lot of their operations. And until the administration changes the position and young men around the world that are otherwise susceptible to recruitment to ISIS sees that ISIS is actually being defeated, sees that, you know, history and God in their minds is not behind ISIS, that ISIS, in fact, is going to fail, until they see that, they're going to be susceptible. And ISIS is going to have the capability to send those messages out. We need ISIS on the run rather than us on the sidelines.


ROYCE: And to do that, it takes a change in strategy and tactics.

BARTIROMO: Yes, no doubt about it. Meanwhile, you and Michael McCaul wrote a letter to the president regarding the Iran deal. We know that this upcoming week, the U.N. Security Council is expected to vote on a resolution to endorse the Iran deal sometime in this upcoming week and we know that the president has just sent the deal to Congress today. Can you explain to us how the next 30 days plays out?

ROYCE: And I wish somebody could explain to me in the administration. And I've -- I've talked to the deputy over there, Tony Blinken, and I've talked to Samantha, you know, Power, the -- the ambassador to the United Nations, about this very issue. It seems to me that under the law it is Congress that has the decision in the next -- and responsibility over the next 60 days to review this agreement and decide on lifting those sanctions, the $150 billion we're talking about, and decide upon whether or not we're even going to lift the arms embargo on Iran, which was thrown into this agreement at the last minute. And that includes their intercontinental ballistic missile system.

What we're being asked by the Pentagon not to support that. If you'll recall the words of our secretary of defense last week and the words of our chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said that should be kept in place. So there's some big issues here that are -- that the administration is going an end run around by going right now to the Security Council and saying, the United Nations should lift this in advance of Congress with its responsibility of reviewing this document. It looks as though the administration is trying to have the United Nations act before Congress can act.

I don't understand how that is proper and that's why Mike McCaul and I sent that letter to the president and why we're convening hearings next week on this subject.

BARTIROMO: So is that the end of the story?

The president has said repeatedly any challenge to this deal will be vetoed. It's so extraordinary that, in the 11th hour, the Iranians come out and say, OK, we'll do the deal; however, we want one more thing. We want that arms embargo lifted after five years. That's one thing.

And at the same time, I don't know, was there any conversation about the four Americans currently being held as hostages in Iran?

That obviously was not part of the deal. Those Americans are still there.  And the president is vowing that this is the final deal.

ROYCE: The zeal for the deal here led to a situation where, at the last minute, not only Iran but Russia got what they wanted and we got rolled at the end. And what Russia wanted was the ability to transfer that intercontinental ballistic missile capability over to Iran.

And Iran wants it because, as you know, their ayatollah is urging, as he said, every military man to figure out how to mass produce these ICBMs. We heard our Secretary of Defense say and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs explain that the problem here is that the I in ICBM stands for intercontinental -- as meaning, could fly from Iran into the United States.

And that is why, said Ash Carter, that is why, said our Secretary of Defense, we have got to prevent them from doing that.


ROYCE: You heard the same thing from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

So when Dempsey and Carter are warning us and then all of a sudden at the last minute that's put into the agreement, yes, Congress has real bipartisan concerns. And that's why we're beginning the process in my committee of looking at this next week and so will the Senate.

BARTIROMO: So bottom line, very quickly, sir, if, in fact, Congress rejects this deal and then the president vetoes it, are you powerless?

ROYCE: No, no. Well, I mean, what we have the capability of doing here is getting the details out in front of the American public so that we can override a veto. And this would not be the first time that a presidential veto was overridden.

But what's important is for the people to understand the details and that's the importance of the hearing and getting our expert witnesses up there, getting the inspectors up there to talk about the 24-hour inspections becoming instead 24-day inspections.

No, we've got to have a thorough vetting here so that the American public understands the risk in terms of the course the president is on.

BARTIROMO: Understood.

Congressman, thanks very much for weighing in. We appreciate it.

ROYCE: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon, Congressman Ed Royce.

There are many critics of the Iran nuclear deal, one of the biggest being Israel's prime minister.

Does he feel Iran will change its behavior in the Middle East under this agreement?

Follow us on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you think. Weigh in to the program, please. Stay with us as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."



BARTIROMO: Welcome back. From the very start, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu consistently critical of the nuclear deal with Iran.  Now pointing to remarks from the country's Supreme Leader as proof he was right, the ayatollah saying that the agreement will not change his country's position on the U.S. and its allies.

Even President Obama admits that it is likely some of the $100 billion that Iran is expecting from unfrozen accounts could be used to fund military activity.

So is the Iran deal truly in the best interest of the United States?

Joining us right now is Dr. Jim Walsh, an international securities expert at MIT.

Sir, good to have you on the program; welcome.


BARTIROMO: We should point out that what the ayatollah actually said, if you want to quote him specifically, was, "it's not going to change our position against the arrogant United States," just to throw that in because he is sticking to his guns in terms of his perception of this country.

What's your perception of the deal right now?

WALSH: Well, I think it's a good deal. It reduces Iran's uranium by 98 percent. It cuts their centrifuges by two-thirds. But there's so many details in this, it's easy to -- for critics to cherry-pick it. I think if you want to evaluate something, you need to stand back and ask yourself two questions.

How does it compare to other agreements that we've had that have been successful, non-proliferation agreements with Moammar Qaddafi, not a good guy; with the Soviet Union, a bad actor?

And then also how does it compare to the alternatives?

And my own view as someone who's studied this for a long, long time, is this agreement is the strongest multilateral agreement on nonproliferation that we've ever negotiated, stronger than the NPT, stronger than that Libya agreement.

So I think it's a big win. And I don't really see -- you know, we're putting -- we're locking this thing down for at least 15 years, probably longer. I don't hear what the alternative is that can achieve that same objective.

BARTIROMO: What about the idea that this arms embargo is being lifted after five years?


BARTIROMO: This is something that was brought up by the Iranians in the 11th hour that we caved on.

WALSH: Yes, I have a different reading of that. I may be wrong, but that's not my reading of the history.

The arms embargo was imposed by the U.N. as punishment for Iran's nuclear program. That was U.N. resolution -- I think it's 1929; it's on the Web.

And so now that we -- they've agreed to do what we asked them to do on their nuclear program; they expect sanctions imposed for the nuclear issue to be rolled back. So I think the Iranians were surprised that this wasn't going to happen. I think they had to swallow hard to have it extend for another five years. I actually think that was a win for us.

BARTIROMO: Where -- that was a win for us, why, that it was -- ?

WALSH: -- because -- yes, because if you do something bad and I punish you for it and then you agree to stop doing the bad thing, in theory, you are supposed to stop the punishment.

We imposed the arms embargo not just because we wanted to but because of the nuclear deal. They are now doing what we want on the nuclear side, so there, naturally, in any business deal, you would expect that if one party does what they're supposed to do, the other party's going to reciprocate.  And so but I think they swallowed hard and I think they made a concession on that.

BARTIROMO: Do you expect that once Iran is able to trade weaponry and get new arms after this five years, that some of those weapons will go to places and groups like Hezbollah?

WALSH: Yes, I think that will happen. Now the CIA came out with an analysis on Friday that said the bulk of sanctions relief is going to go to the economy. But I expect some leakage there, some of it to go, but --


WALSH: But what's the logic here? If we're saying we want a deal with Iran that stops the nuclear program, but they get no sanctions relief, who's going -- you know, on what planet is that deal possible? The only way that happens is if they -- they do what we want them to do and then we stop the sanctions. If we -- for the folks who say, no, we can't have any sanctions relief because of terrorism or whatever, they're saying, no nuclear deal. And then what do you get? You get terrorism and a nuclear weapon. You have an unconstrained Iran. That's the worst of all possible circumstances.

BARTIROMO: Yes, it's really amazing that even the four Americans, though, are still being held hostage. That was another part of this that was a surprise to me.

Sir, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for weighing in.

WALSH: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it and we'll see you soon. Jim Walsh joining us from MIT.

A big victory for AIG, meanwhile, A federal judge ruling that the Federal Reserve did overstep its authority in bailing out the insurance company. The former chairman and CEO of AIG has sued the government. He'll be joining us next.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Government overreach. That is the word of the day from business today on the heels of the financial crisis and a much stricter regulatory environment. I'm joined right now by Hank Greenberg. He's the chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr, former chairman and CEO of AIG, who also shares that thinking.

Hank, good to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Has the government gone overboard in terms of the regulatory environment right now? I want to get into your lawsuit in a second on behalf of 275,000 shareholders. But tell us where you stand on this.

GREENBERG: Well, there's no question the government has gone way overboard and business is hampered. It can't do the things that it should be doing. It's impacting growth and creation of jobs. I mean we've got to bring the pendulum back towards the center.

BARTIROMO: Now you represented 275,000 shareholders of AIG, sued the government and won. Judge Wheeler ruled that in fact the government was illegal in acquiring almost 80 percent of AIG back in the dark days of 2008 and charged the company 14 percent interest rate. How did you feel about the ruling given the fact that he also ruled no damages?

GREENBERG: (INAUDIBLE). I think he ruled correctly on the first half, that the government did overstep its bounds. In fact, the Fed is able to lend money, but it never had authority to take equity. And this is the first time in 75 years that -- that they did that. And -- and, of course, what they did, once they got control of AIG, they used AIG as a backdoor bailout for many other institutions who had -- who borrowed money also were charged 2.5 and 3 percent against the 14 percent. Then they sold off assets of AIG and made $23 billion of profit.

BARTIROMO: You had some sizable names testifying. Ben Bernanke testified. Hank Paulson, former Treasury secretary, testified. Tim Geithner testified. Go through some of those testimonies for us and tell us what was really the most important in terms of dictating or getting Judge Wheeler to make this ruling.

GREENBERG: Well, I think that -- Hank Paulson, I think, was fairly straightforward. He said it was political and they were going to punish AIG. Those were two things he said that -- that was the reason that they did that.

BARTIROMO: But, you know, you're left with -- after hearing that, you're left with the why. Why was AIG the one to punish?

GREENBERG: Well, because there was nobody there to defend AIG. You know, it all started, as you know, with a former attorney general who was trying to become governor.

BARTIROMO: Eliot Spritzer.

GREENBERG: Yes. And wanted to use AIG, me personally, which he did, and the board collapsed and I left AIG. And so there was a vacuum. And so that's what the government took advantage of.

BARTIROMO: So that's what Hank Paulson -- Hank Paulson said it was political. What about Geithner?

GREENBERG: Geithner, I thought, was the one that was the least transparent.

BARTIROMO: What about Ben Bernanke?

GREENBERG: Well, he -- I thought he was so academic, I don't think he knew much about the realistic aspect. To say that AIG was the worst that he's ever seen. Morgan Stanley borrowed a lot more money than AIG at 2.5 to 3 percent. No one said a word about that.

BARTIROMO: This has also motivated a number of other companies. You see companies like MetLife pushing back on government saying, look, we don't want to be deemed too big to fail or systemically important. The same thing with Prudential. Do you see this case as empowering business to push back on government?

GREENBERG: Absolutely. You -- if you don't push back and get the pendulum swinging back towards the center, we're doomed. Business will -- will just not do well, jobs won't be created, the economy won't do well. So you've got to -- if you don't defend your rights and if a government oversteps its bounds and violates constitutional rights, there's nothing to complain about.

BARTIROMO: And you challenge them on behalf of 275,000 shareholders. You say you will appeal this decision.


BARTIROMO: What does that appeal look like? Tell us what -- what --

GREENBERG: Well, I feel pretty good about the --


GREENBERG: About it. I, you know, I have great admiration for Judge Wheeler. I don't agree with him on this issue. And, you know, we are going to appeal this. And it may well be that we'll have to go to the court -- to the Supreme Court ultimately.

BARTIROMO: You think this is going to take six to nine months?

GREENBERG: For the -- for the first appeal.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Well, we'll be watching the appeal. Hank, good to have you on the show today.

GREENBERG: Good to be with you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Hank Greenberg, chairman and CEO at C.V. Starr.

Coming up next, the search for answers into a tragedy. Investigators looking for a motive in the Chattanooga shooting rampage, while lawmakers are talking about ways to prevent it from ever happening again. Our panel is here as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a moment.


SHAWN: From America's news headquarters, I'm Eric Shawn. Here's some of the other stories that are making headlines at this hour.

A horrific scene on eastern Long Island in New York State after a pickup truck slams into a limousine, killing four young women. Two others were seriously injured. Those women were returning from a bachelorette party at a local winery.

Police say the limousine and chuck hog (ph) was trying to make a U-turn when that pickup truck crashed right into it. The pickup truck driver was arrested for drunk driving.

And AC-DC drummer Phil Rudd is back behind bars, the 61-year old arrested in New Zealand just days after being sentenced to house arrest for threatening to kill a man who used to work for him. Police are not commenting on the nature of the arrest. Rudd will be held until a court appearance tomorrow for a bail application. Rudd is currently not touring with the band. His future, though, with that musical group is uncertain.

And I'll be back with Arthel Neville at noon Eastern with more news and the doctors are in. Drs. Siegel and Samadi join us for "Sunday Housecall" at 12:30. So for now, I'm Eric Shawn and back to "Sunday Morning Futures" and Maria.


BARTIROMO: Thank you, Eric.

Turning back now to the deadly shootings in Tennessee this past week. We continue to learn more about the suspected shooter, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, including his state of depression after returning to the United States following a trip to Jordan last year.

Authorities are still piecing together what exactly drove him to shoot and kill five people at two military recruitment centers.

Meanwhile, lawmakers here at home are figuring out ways to make sure that lives are not lost in a similar manner ever again.

I want to bring in our panel on this.

Ed Rollins is former principal White House advisor to President Reagan. He has been a long-time strategist to business and political leaders. He is a FOX News political analyst.

Judith Miller is adjunct fellow at The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She's a Pulitzer Prize winning author and journalist and a FOX News contributor.

And Alan Colmes is the host of the "Alan Colmes Show." We're happy to have him with us this morning.

Good to see everybody. Thank you so much for joining us.

The gunman reportedly was blogging about Islam, showed increased signs of devotion to Islam. But we have not named this specifically homegrown terrorism yet.

Alan, do you think people are making that judgment too quickly?

ALAN COLMES, RADIO HOST: I think we're too quick to rush to label it. You got to say terrorism within three minutes. They did call it domestic terrorism. As I understand, the FBI's looking at domestic terrorism. So that's been defined.

But if you don't say the right words in a certain amount of time, certain political forces come at you. It is what it is. And people feel we have to put the word "Islam" in. I think this is tremendous Islamophobia. This is a lone wolf who is not representing Islam. And I think we need to separate what true Islam is versus people who use it as a cover for whatever heinous act they're going to --


BARTIROMO: So you're fine calling it domestic terrorism, which the FBI is, but you do not think that linking it to Islam is appropriate?

COLMES: I think too many people want to define the entire religion that way and use it as an excuse for their own Islamophobia.

BARTIROMO: Fair enough.


JUDITH MILLER, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: No, I think it's entirely appropriate to ask Muslims, people -- the 99 percent of Muslims who practice their faith and reject this kind of violence to say this guy and people like him do not represent us.

And moreover, yes, it's true that we don't know what his motivation was.  It could have been depression; it could have been insanity.

However, what we do know is that the challenge to law enforcement as individuals like this is profound because the NYPD's intelligence former director told me that, given his blogs on Islam, what he had already posted, that would not have been enough even for New York to have opened an investigation against him.

BARTIROMO: That's true.

MILLER: So this is really hard to prevent. But we have to define it. We have to call it what it is.

BARTIROMO: And we are questioning, Ed Rollins, whether or not we're doing enough and things are in place enough to avoid something like this again.

ED ROLLINS, POLITICAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: It's a very complicated issue.  And obviously the guy's a murderer. I don't care what you call him. He's a murderer who murdered --

BARTIROMO: Thank you.

ROLLINS: -- innocent people, five people who've served in our military, and served ably, basically went to work yesterday and got killed.

So my sense is there's a lot of things talking about arming the guys that have been in recruiting stations, not wearing their uniforms; a lot of that's absurd. Marines sitting in a recruiting office should not be armed.  There should be some protection, whether it's police protection or military police, but you can't put them in guns.

You basically can't -- maybe they need to think about how their recruiting sites, maybe they don't need every recruiting site in every shopping center.

But I think the American military is now a target. And it may be a radical, it may be an individual, it may be an organization. But at the end of the day, we can't allow this to continue to happen.

MILLER: Ed, I'm sorry, but if these places are known targets of jihadis, why not give them the right to defend themselves?

Marines are armed overseas.

MILLER: Well, they're armed in a different way. I think it's very important, most guys when they go off to war, they learn to shoot with rifles, what have you. They're not necessarily pistol oriented. And you don't want them to pack guns. They're not like police officers that go every week and go train and shoot.

So the idea --


BARTIROMO: If there were someone armed at the --

MILLER: And that could be a military police -- I'm not saying you don't arm them. I'm just simply saying don't make -- the idea that I've heard is let's slap -- put guns on these guys, put them in their place so they can - - you don't want these running battles going on. I think at the end of the day, you want them protected. You want some sort of shield. You want then to -- there's just a lot of absurd things that are being thrown around here. Take them out of their uniforms.

I mean, how absurd is that? They're Marines. And we should be proud of our uniform.

But the idea that most of these guys are trained with rifles, not with pistols. And these guys come in with Uzis and everything else. And I think it's just a simple solution, but the real solution is really law enforcement. Law enforcement needs to protect these places that are --

COLMES: Isn't it kind of crazy we have a military that knows how to use arms?

I'm not the most pro-gun guy in the world --

COLMES: -- arm them --

ROLLINS: You're making an assumption that every military officer or soldier knows how to use pistols and what have you.


MILLER: I would hope they do.

ROLLINS: Well, their training is different.

Well, you don't know a lot about the military.

COLMES: Make sure they have the right training so that they're --


ROLLINS: If the drill is going to be that you basically take any four or five guys that are maybe at a recruiting station and you train them, get them prepared for terrorism in cities, that's fine. I would just argue that MPs or something else, I'm just simply saying by arming these guys is not going to basically be the solution --

BARTIROMO: OK. I'm glad you clarified that.

Let's get a look at what's coming up on "MediaBuzz" top of the hour, Howie Kurtz is standing by.

Howie, good morning to you.

HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS HOST: Good morning, Maria. We're going to look at this growing media furor over Donald Trump, now refusing to apologize over comments, saying John McCain is not a war hero, despite the senator's 5.5- year captivity in Vietnam.

And we'll analyze how his -- Trump's style of insult and tabloid headlines may have served him well in the past, not so much in a presidential campaign.

I've also got a sitdown with Mike Huckabee. We'll talk about Hillary, Trump, gay marriage and whether the media are pigeonholing him, the former Arkansas governor, as a social issues candidate.

BARTIROMO: All right. We will be there. And before you do, we are talking about Donald Trump as well on the panel right here. We will go inside the fallout over those comments about Senator McCain. And we're looking ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES this morning. Stay with us for our panel's take on Donald Trump.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

Democrats and Republicans rushing to condemn Donald Trump this morning for his controversial comments about Senator John McCain. Speaking yesterday at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa, the real estate mogul took aim at McCain's war record saying, quote, "he is a war hero because he was captured. I like people who were not captured." Here's Trump defending himself this morning on "Fox and Friends."


DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): I'm talking about McCain. And, by the way, if you read Sharyl Attkisson, I said nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing wrong. She did a whole analysis and she -- word by word she said he said nothing wrong. This was brought up by the opponents and it's ridiculous.

They're trying to tie McCain to the veterans and I attacked McCain, which I didn't do, by the way. I attacked McCain and therefore -- I'm not attack -- I'm the one that's going to help the veterans.

The veterans are treated very, very badly and John McCain has been all talk. Like all politicians, he's all talk and he's no action.


BARTIROMO: I want to bring back our panel right now. Ed Rollins, Judy Miller and Alan Colmes.

I don't know about you guys, I think this is going to act as a way to bring the Republicans together. Right off the bat, as soon as Donald Trump made those comments, Lindsey Graham tweeted out, Jeb Bush tweeted out. Basically everybody tweeted out saying, enough.

ROLLINS: Well, he --

COLMES: Rick --

ROLLINS: I'm sorry.

COLMES: Perry had the best reaction, I think, when he said, you know, it's time for him to remove himself from this. And he was the one who forcefully came forward. But you've got Ted Cruz, who just met with Trump, who won't attack him. Benefit Carson has said, I'm not going to, you know, play the rope-a-dope on it. And where's the leadership of the Republican Party?

BARTIROMO: But the others.

COLMES: Reince Priebus needs to come forth and say, there's no room for that in our party.

ROLLINS: The audacity of the guy who had five deferments during Vietnam and basically got out and found -- because he had a bad foot but he can't -- doesn't remember which foot was that.

BARTIROMO: He doesn't remember which foot it was.

ROLLINS: Which foot it was. To attack a man who everybody by every consensus was an American hero, equally as important. No one has fought more for veterans since he returned from the camp, five and a half years of torture. He's a --

BARTIROMO: John McCain is absolutely a war hero.

ROLLINS: Is -- is -- is a war hero. The nominee of our party. And for him to be out attacking him, as a chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he's restoring a lot of the cuts and things that have been made in the past. I mean I disagree with John on some things, but I think he's a great American hero and I think this is outrageous. This guy has been a distraction to this party. Now he's starting to be a destructive force.

BARTIROMO: I agree that John McCain is absolutely a hero in this country.

Judy, how do you see it?

MILLER: Donald Trump, have you no shame? I mean this is -- you -- you really -- it comes to the point you call illegal Mexican, legal Mexicans rapists and murders. I mean 50,000 people -- 50,000 Hispanics are turning 18 every month for the next two decades. If the Republicans ever want to win a race again, they've got to run away as fast as they can from Donald Trump.

COLMES: Can I just say why one of the reasons he's a hero is because he was given a chance to be freed by his captors because of his father's service and he refused.

BARTIROMO: John McCain, yes.


COLMES: John McCain refused when he had that opportunity.


ROLLINS: And he was tortured extremely more so because of that.

MILLER: Extremely.

ROLLINS: And this is a man who -- Trump may not remember his foot, but John McCain remembers his torture every day because he can barely lift his shoulders.

BARTIROMO: That's right.

ROLLINS: They tied him up like this every single day and pulled his shoulders out. And no one had more torture than he had.

BARTIROMO: That's right. And there's absolutely no question in terms of John McCain being a -- being a war hero. But let's talk about the impact on Trump and the impact on the Republican Party. Is Donald Trump tainting the entire GOP?

MILLER: Maria, you know from the beginning that I've argued that and that I think that this is -- this man is a danger to the Republican brand and a danger to Republican prospects in the next presidential election. I've thought that from the beginning when other people were saying, this is a political side show.


MILLER: No, this is a problem.

BARTIROMO: And, by the way, I notice how to say --

ROLLINS: What one man -- what --

BARTIROMO: You said a minute ago that the Republican National Committee did not say anything. They have responded.

ROLLINS: They -- they have responded.

BARTIROMO: And they absolutely have just said to Donald Trump, enough with the attacks.

COLMES: Good, I -- I didn't --

BARTIROMO: There's no room in this campaign to attack the people who fight for our freedom.

COLMES: What I think they need to say though is even more than that. I think Reince Priebus, the head of the RNC, needs to say there's no room in this party for that kind of rhetoric. He needs to be more forceful.

ROLLINS: One man is not -- one man is not the Republican Party. We have many outstanding candidates. And my point of all this is the side show that he's put on, he's dominated the media.

BARTIROMO: That's right.

ROLLINS: Since he's got in this -- this big conference yesterday, 3,000 people attend. All the stories are about him and his comments and not anybody else. I think, at the end of the day, I -- 24 years ago I ran Ross Perot's campaign for a couple months. He was at 35, 39 percent leading Bush and Clinton of all the population and two weeks later he was at 16 and dropped out.


ROLLINS: You can drop awful fast in this race when you get scrutinized. This guy's going to get scrutinized.

MILLER: But how much --

BARTIROMO: So you think he's -- you think it's over for him then?

ROLLINS: I think he'll stay in for a while, but I think he's going to get battered and bruised and I think everybody now is going to call him out on his things, the stupid things he's said. I'm going to build a wall. I'm going to charge Mexico to do it.

BARTIROMO: And let Mexico pay for it. Right.

ROLLINS: These -- these all -- these all absurd things.

MILLER: But how much damage does he do to the party in the interim?

COLMES: Maybe he makes the other candidates look more -- more like diplomats by --

ROLLINS: I think -- I --

BARTIROMO: I think he brings them together with this most recent comment.

COLMES: You know, he makes Jeb Bush look like a great statesman.

BARTIROMO: Real quick before we take a break, I want to get your take very quickly on Iran because this upcoming week, of course, the U.N. Security Council is going to vote on the resolution to endorse the deal. It could happen any day this week. What's your take on how this plays out?

ROLLINS: My issue is, the nuclear thing has never been the issue to me. The issue to me is giving them $150 billion back to sponsor terrorism. And they have sponsored terrorism from the beginning. We always forget, and on this day that the Marines were killed yesterday, I remember my last day in the White House where I was running the campaign, 241 Marines were killed in Beirut by Hezbollah, which was sponsored and planned by Iran. And we have never basically forgotten that and shouldn't forget that. They're bad guys. The leadership of that country are bad guys.


ROLLINS: Whether they get a nuclear weapon or not is not as relevant as the terrorism they're going to continue the next seven years.

BARTIROMO: The president sent it to Congress today. Are they going to have any input?

MILLER: Of course they're going to have input and this --

BARTIROMO: Will it matter?

MILLER: This is going to be debated, but I still say, Ed, the answer, yes, for me, this is the nuclear thing. If this agreement can buy us 10 years of reducing the scale and scope of the Iranian program, which it seems to, then what I want to do is spend the rest of the time containing Iran while we've contained Iran --

BARTIROMO: How are we containing them if we're lifting the arms embargo after five years?

COLMES: You're listening --

BARTIROMO: How is that containing them?

MILLER: Five to eight years. That's down the road. Right now, in the next five years is crucial. And if Iran understands that its bad behavior, quite apart from this agreement --


MILLER: Will not be tolerated, that's where the next president can make his or her mark.

ROLLINS: Except --


ROLLINS: Bad behavior is going to continue. And we know that. There's no promises they made. They made --


ROLLINS: The comment that she made about what the ayatollah said last week, they're going to still be the most dangerous country in the world and they're going to continue with a lot more resources to create chaos.

BARTIROMO: Yes, well, Alan, we're going to get you --

COLMES: If -- if you don't believe in diplomacy, what do you believe in? If you don't think you can have a deal -- and as President Obama said, you deal -- make these deals with your enemies, not with your friends.


COLMES: What's the alternative? I've not heard the better plan put forth by those who claim to oppose this.

BARTIROMO: Fair enough.

Let's take a short break then.

With economic turmoil overseas, is the U.S. still on track to raise interest rates later this year. Janet Yellen dropping some new hints this past week about that. We're looking ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a minute.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

The head of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, testifying before a House panel this week. The chairwoman indicating that things are still on track for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Congress is facing a set of short-term budget concerns, stoking fears of another partial government shutdown.

I want to bring back our panel, Ed Rollins, Judy Miller and Alan Colmes.

By the way, speaking of economics, everyone is looking at the states that are doing well. John Kasich, governor of Ohio, is expected to announce his candidacy this upcoming week.

ROLLINS: John is probably the most qualified -- one of the most qualified men to run for president. He's been a great governor. He was a great chairman of the Budget Committee. He was on the Armed Services Committee for 16 years in the house. He probably is as knowledgeable as anybody we have in this party. He'll be a great candidate.

MILLER: I think he has a terrific record. I agree with you, Ed. But the question is, does he have Bush's money? Does he have Rubio's charisma? Does he have Scott Walker's appeal to the Evangelicals? Is he not a vice president rather than a president?

BARTIROMO: He could be a vice president. Alan.

ROLLINS: No one runs -- no one runs -- no one runs for vice president. You run for president and you make a choice.

COLMES: He's going to run for president and Republicans need Ohio. They came (ph) with Ohio. He's a very popular governor, as you pointed out, and I think he brings a lot to the table and could be a very good person to watch for Republicans.

BARTIROMO: At a time that the economy is doing two steps forward one step back, Janet Yellen last week basically suggested it's OK that we've got turmoil in Europe and Greece is bankrupt right now, that's not going to impact the U.S. Likely that the happenings in China is not going to impact the U.S. So, yes, we will raise interest rates come September or December. How would you characterize the economy right now?

ROLLINS: Not very good.

BARTIROMO: The second half is all about the consumer.

MILLER: Not very good.

BARTIROMO: People are expecting consumers to come out of their shell. We're not seeing it, Alan.

COLMES: You've got to remember where we came from and look at where we are. And where we came from is a --

BARTIROMO: What are we eight, nine years later?

COLMES: Yes, but, still, here -- you don't -- you don't recover just like that. Look at the jobs picture. Look at the unemployment rate compared to what it was even two to three years ago and it's gone a great -- gone forth a great deal.

MILLER: Look at the mess in China. Look at Greece. Look at Europe. This is such an unstable situation. I don't understand her comments, quite frankly.

ROLLINS: So we're --

BARTIROMO: Will we see --

ROLLINS: So we're now going to be compared to Greece? I don't think so.

BARTIROMO: Will we see another government shutdown? The American people have no tolerance for this.

COLMES: No, because Republicans know they'll get blamed for it.


COLMES: They can't risk that at this point.

BARTIROMO: Give us your sense of the budget. How does this play out in the next several weeks going into a summer recess?

ROLLINS: Republicans are going to try and have a responsible budget and Democrats are going to do everything they can to stop it.

MILLER: A continuing resolution, continuing resolutions.

BARTIROMO: Well, let's take a quick break.

Still to come, the one thing to watch in the week ahead, on the weeks ahead, that's important to our panel on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Back with our panel with the one big thing to watch in the week ahead.

Alan Colmes.

COLMES: Donald Trump makes every other Republican candidate look like great diplomats and wonderful statesman and it really helps them.

BARTIROMO: There you go.


MILLER: I'm waiting to see what else we're going to learn about this agreement, what's in it. I hope there are no more poison pills or people like me who've endorsed it will have a difficult time defending it.

BARTIROMO: It will be a big week for the Iran deal.

MILLER: Right.

ROLLINS: I'm going to -- I'm going to watch when the Republicans and their allies have a coordinated message on why this is such a bad deal and takes the country in a very effective campaign.

BARTIROMO: All right, we'll be watching that.

Thanks so much to all of you for joining us today.

This upcoming week it's all about earnings as well. Second quarter earnings. Microsoft, IBM, The list goes on.

I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks so much for being with us on "Sunday Morning Futures." I'll see you next week on "Mornings With Maria" from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern on the Fox Business Network. Take a look at where to find the Fox Business Network on your cable network or satellite provider. Have great Sunday.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.