Roskam: Tax plan is more than a cut, it's a transformation

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," November 19, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning everyone. Lawmakers are headed home for the holidays but tax reform is looming when they return. And will there also be a special counsel to look into the Uranium One controversy by the New Year?

Good morning I'm Maria Bartiromo, welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures." The House passed its tax bill last week, now it's up to the Senate. But could Republican holdouts derail the whole thing? I'll talk to House Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam this morning along with Congressman Darrell Issa from California, one of the current GOP no vote. We'll also hear from Eric Trump this morning and ask him about the prospect to tax reform, getting his take on Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Plus, will there be a Special Council to look at Hillary Clinton's role in the Uranium One controversy? Former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins is with me this morning live as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

Republicans notching their first big victory on tax reform. The House passed its bill last week, now it is the Senate's turn as they prepare to vote on a different tax bill after the Thanksgiving holiday. However, 13 Republicans actually opposed the House bill and the fate of the Senate bill is far from certain. How does the GOP get everybody on board? Joining me right now is Illinois Republican Congressman Peter Roskam, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy. Congressman, it's good to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Congratulations on a big victory last week.

ROSKAM: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: I want to read you a couple of the comments from the group, the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget and that of course Maya MacGuineas group. And she says tax cuts do not pay for themselves. And she's looking at the current bill that just passed saying that the last time Congress added 10 figures worth of tax cuts to the debt was in 2001 and it blew a hole in the budgets and it helped erase the surpluses despite claims that economic growth would cover the cost. The growth that -- the growth fare did not appear. So what's your take on this? When do you expect growth to actually help pay for this bill?

ROSKAM: I have a lot of respect for Maya and the organization. I think we need to distinguish a couple of things though. What this bill does is a transformational approach as it relates to taxes. This is not simply a tax cut. This is a transformation of our entire tax policy updating the whole thing, moving us out of the negative impact that we have on a global basis moving for full expensing. So I think the criticism that says all tax cuts are created equal is right. They don't all create growth but the ones that do are highly stimulative. So there's two things that are happening. One is offering relief to people. They just need tax relief and this is taking a tax burden off their backs but the stimulative nature is well designed.

So for example, I was at a manufacturing company not long ago in my constituency in Suburban Chicago. The company said this. Peter, we're going to invest $30 million in our plant next year. If that tax bill plans with full expensing as we proposed, we're not going to spend $30 million. we're going to spend $50 million. It's that type of approach that we're trying to create here which is why there was so much enthusiasm about it among Republicans in the House. You haven't seen this type of unanimity in a long, long time.

BARTIROMO: Well you have enthusiasm sure but not so much on that -- from those 13 Republicans who voted no against the House bill.

ROSKAM: Oh, hey, God bless them you know. And if you're chasing -- you know, you're chasing everybody all the time in terms of a roll call vote, you're going to be waiting a long time. To get 227 House Republicans to agree on something as big as this is I think incredibly significant and a good milestone but we still have good work to do.

BARTIROMO: So you've got the state and local tax deduction eliminated in the plan except for the tax break on property taxes, we know that. But we're going to seek with Darrell Issa in a few minutes and obviously he was one of the no votes because he says California is the big loser here, even Southern California Representative Ted Lieu says California will be the biggest loser from the House bill, since under this plan Californians will shoulder the largest net tax increase at $12.1 billion in 2027. Do you worry that voters are going to turn against you guys in 2018 because some people are paying higher taxes because of the elimination of that - of that deduction? What's the impact of that elimination in your view?

ROSKAM: So your question is do I worry and the answer is no. What I worry about is not getting tax reform done. So that's I think the first point. I represent a constituency in a high tax state, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and California, all are high tax jurisdictions. And what we've tried to do in this bill is come up with a compromise that as you pointed out earlier, there's two current deductions in the tax code as it relates to state and local taxes. One is presumably income tax and sales taxes and others and the other is property taxes. So what I fought for and we were successful in including is to separate out, keep the property tax deduction, cap it at $10,000. But property taxes are different in that they're not related in your capacity to pay.

You get a property tax bill whether or not you can pay that bill or not. There's no relationship to pay. And if someone were to evaluate this tax plan and say that is the only thing that's happening, that is the elimination of a state and local deduction, then the criticism would be right. But look, you've got to look at this in totality. These rates are coming down, the brackets are being extended, it's the elimination of the alternative minimum tax and I know in my constituency that hits 30,000 households. We're increasing a child tax credit, we're increasing a new family credit, so my point is you've got to evaluate this in its totality and in its totality, this plan is a winner.

BARTIROMO: Yes. No, I understand and I know that the corporate tax cut is really what's most important here, encouraging businesses to create more jobs and invest in their businesses. But no doubt about it, this salt deduction is real and it has cut people's taxes a lot and helped them save money. So the salt in2014 alone, the salt deductions cut California taxable income by a total of $101 billion, more than twice that of second place New York according to the tax foundation. Do you expect there will be any room on this in the Senate plan or they're going to even be -- you know, even stricter by not having a property tax break?

ROSKAM: I think that there will be room in the Senate plan. I think the Senate when it comes down to it whether it comes out of the Senate or not I have a great deal of confidence that this would be in a final conference committee report. Let me go back to one of the facts that you just asserted and that's was the notion of how much the current state and local tax deduction is. Yes, that's that amount of money but that's within the current tax code.

So for example, it's basically a truism to assert that it's currently this valuable but what we're saying is let's shed this whole tax code. It's a loser. It is not helping us, it's holding back growth and if we do that and you -- and you change these deductions within the context of overall tax reform, that is what we're proposing. And look, when it all comes down to it, 90 percent of American taxpayers, when we're done would be able to fill their return out on something as simple as a postcard. That's worth celebrating, that's worth chasing, that's worth pursuing, and that's absolutely what we're doing.

BARTIROMO: So do you think that the local state and city lawmakers are going to reevaluate what they're doing? I mean, this morning we've got this quote. We're going to have to reevaluate everything if a federal bill repealing the state and local tax deduction becomes law from New Jersey Senate precedence. You know, de Blasio wants his millionaire's tax, California has you know -- high taxes already in the state of California and they're saying we're reevaluating everything because I'm just saying that what's happening in Washington is concerning the hell out of me, Mr. Sweeney said. Do you expect that we're going to see an exodus out of these high state -- high tax states and pressure the governors and the local politicians to lower taxes or pull in spending?

ROSKAM: That's up to them. I'm in -- I'm in a state that is a fiscal basket case right now. My home state you know, jammed through a massive tax hike on middle-class folks, folks up and down the whole spectrum last summer and it -- and it hasn't ended well because they haven't dealt with the underlying spending problems. Look, when you take on something as big as the federal tax code, you're not just, you know -- for example, if healthcare deals with one-sixth of the economy, which it does, tax policy deals with the entire economy. And if you're dealing with the entire U.S. economy, you're having an impact on a global basis.

So I think what we've got to do is look at a bigger -- look at ultimately what we're trying to do. We want to make the U.S. the most competitive tax jurisdiction in the world and I think that happens. One quick point, the best way to track local revenues and state revenues and you want to see them grow? Grow the economy. Continue to have underperforming growth and they're going to have underperforming revenue.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, I don't understand why you didn't do anything with carried interest. I mean, you hear -- I've got a quote here from Jeff Gundlach one of the most successful hedge fund managers out there. And here's what he says. I'm very disappointed incidentally about the shape of this tax cut that is being proposed. I am just appalled that we are going to continue to have a carried interest scheme for hedge funds. And we know what the President said during the election. He said that he would change carried interest which allows certain fund managers and private equity guys to treat income as capital gains, enabling them to have a 20 percent rather than 39.6 percent rate. How come no change in carried interest other than just you know, having people have a longer timeframe to hold that security?

ROSKAM: Well a longer timeframe to hold the security is important. It's all about the alignment of interest. I get the criticism and the back and forth and it could be that the United States Senate comes up with a different plan on carried interest that's their prerogative and if they do we'll take a look at it. Here's what we don't want to do. We don't want to make it so that some suburban developer in my constituency who's trying to put together some real estate deal where there is capital that's involved and an active owner that's involved somehow we blow up the finances of that deal. So we've got to be careful about it. What we proposed is a longer holding duration. If the Senate comes up with another plan, of course, we'll evaluate that and give that a reconsideration.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will leave it there. We'll be watching you, sir. Thanks so much for joining us.

ROSKAM: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Peter Roskam there. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton firing back meanwhile, at Republicans as they call for a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal. Is there really enough evidence to launch a full investigation? We'll talk about it coming up next with Bud Cummins. Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear coming up in the program as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."



HILARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: This appears to be the politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system. This Uranium One story has been debunked countless times. This is such an abuse of power and it goes right at the rule of law.


BARTIROMO: Well that's former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton firing back at calls for special counsel to investigate the Obama era Uranium One deal. Some Republicans including President Trump argue that she engaged in pay to play. Bud Cummins is a partner at avenue strategies and a former U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Arkansas. Good to see you, sir. Thanks so much for joining us this morning


BARTIROMO: Should there be a special counsel to look at Uranium One?

CUMMINS: I think there's two questions here, Maria. I think the first question is should there be an investigation of that transaction? The second question is who should investigate it? So when you ask me should there be a special counsel appointed, I think it presumes that's the only way to investigate it. I'm not sure that's right and frankly, I don't like these special counsels at all. I'm not aware of one that has gone well. They become runaway trains. But should the -- should the Uranium One transactions be investigated?

You know, tens of millions of dollars traded hands or at least one witness has said that people that gave them money were trying to buy influence. I think that's worth a look. The question is does it merit the sensational process of appointing a special counsel and does that bring in a level of politics that is not in play when just the U.S. Attorney's Office or main justice does their job quietly and goes and takes a look at something and exercises discretion about how far the investigation should go and whether charges should be brought.

BARTIROMO: So what should be looked at specifically? I mean, we know that the Clinton Foundation received the $145 million from a Kremlin-backed company. We know that she approved a sale of 20 percent of the Uranium -- of the U.S.' stockpile and we know that around that time Bill Clinton was giving speeches in Moscow getting half a million dollars,$500,000 price tag there. Are these some of the things that you're referring to or are there other things you that think are more important to be looked at?

CUMMINS: Well, I believe I've read in the reporting that there's at least one witness that it was connected to an employee of the Russians that believes that they heard conversations that indicated that those contributions were attempts to buy influence. I think the debunking or the -- Hillary's supporters want to say this has all been debunked because of the CFIUS process, the committee process and that's true. It would have been hard for Hillary to drive this through on her own as Secretary of State but I think there's still a fair question why was this money being given? Was there other influence that was being sought and I think a look into that is merited. $145 million in my neighborhood is a lot of money and that's wonderful if they were trying to give it to a charitable cause and then it wasn't transparently disclosed so those I think raise enough questions that a fair and non-political prosecutor would want to take a look.

BARTIROMO: I mean, people really just want to make sure that there's fairness and there's accountability. I spoke with Trey Gowdy from the Oversight Committee last week and Congressman Gowdy said, look we need to make sure that the DOJ is doing their job, very similar to what you just said actually. Not sure if it's a special prosecutor or if it's just the DOJ doing their job but we need the DOJ to do their job. Is the DOJ doing their job? How come we're just hearing about this look at -- look at this now? We've known about this for some time.

CUMMINS: Well, when I became a United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft sat me down in a room with Deputy General Larry Thompson and just the three of us. And he explained to me that he had studied the history of the Department of Justice and every time they lost sight of the need to keep the politics out of these decisions, they'd gotten in trouble. So what I think the Department of Justice needs to do and I think they're doing very effectively is really not pay a lot of attention to what the Congressman are saying or the Senators, not pay a lot of attention to what the White House are saying, and they need to just do their job. Doing their job is to quietly evaluate these facts, make determinations about what merits an investigation and then conducting that investigation as discretely as they can until they get to a point where they can make a decision.

BARTIROMO: Right, because so much conversation about conflicts, you've got Robert Mueller obviously formerly head of the FBI now being questioned about conflict with the FBI. Can he actually, you know, honestly investigate his former colleagues?

CUMMINS: You know what, these special counsels -- I mean, the fact that you and I knows so much about what they're doing -- and I think Robert Mueller has a great reputation and I'm going to suggest to you that we can assume that he's doing as good a job as professionally as can be done. But it's a runaway train. We don't want to launch people and you know, 30 FBI agents and 14 prosecutors on the sole mission of investigating any single person until they find something that sounds more like stalling than it does the United States of America and we've done that many times. And I just think we really need to be careful.

When the FBI comes and arrests your brother or your sister, your son, your daughter, your husband, your wife, you want to believe that it's for the right reasons, that there's been a serious violation of the law not because of some political motivation and that they've you know, stepped on the wrong political toes. So I think we really need to pump the brakes on some of this stuff. Do these transactions merit investigation? Yes. But we need to get a -- you know, there's really, in my opinion, no reason for Bob Mueller's special prosecutor team to even be in place and I think that they should be evaluating that right now. I'd like to see the Attorney General lift his recusal and shutdown that special prosecutor and take that investigation back into the Department of Justice. That's where it ought to be.

BARTIROMO: Wow. All right. Well, all very fair and balanced insights from you Bud Cummins. Thanks very much for joining us this morning.

CUMMINS: I try to be.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon sir, thank you. Some GOP lawmakers are still not happy to put their support behind their parties tax plans. Up next, I'll talk to one of the no votes so far, California Congressman Darrell Issa is with me live as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." We'll be right back.


BARTIROMO: The GOP tax reform plan clearing its first hurdle in Congress last week passing in the House while the Senate works at its own version. But 13 House Republicans voted against the GOP measure. One of them is California Congressman Darrell Issa. He joins me right now. Congressman, good to see you again. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.

REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: Thank you Maria and thanks -- I looked at the earlier segment with Peter and I -- and I think you did a good job of explaining or having him fleshing out the problem. This is an overhaul and a good one on the business side but for example, they didn't attack carried interest which is clearly a loophole and then they went on to spend another many trillion, you know, t$ 1.5 trillion on a personal side that really isn't an overhaul, it's in fact simply a change.

BARTIROMO: Yes. And you know I know that this is a big deal for California. In 2014 alone, the salt deductions slashed Californians' taxable income by a total of $101 billion more than twice that of second place New York. So New York and California are upset about this. Do you think that there is room for movement here in the Senate plan? I know you voted no largely because of the salt deduction being eliminated and your constituents seeing some taxes go higher. Do you think that the Senate makes a change on that?

ISSA: Well if the Senate asks the basic question of why are we raising taxes on anyone other than those caught up in loophole closing, then they can get past this. You know, one of the things that's in this bill and it's not popular to talk about is doubling the standard deduction. But Maria, you know from your years in economics and so on that if you -- if you, in fact, double the deduction, meaning you give -- you allow people to not pay taxes on more money even if they don't have a group of itemizable offsets, then what you're really doing is lowering taxes on them beyond what they actually were spending. In other words, the standard deduction for many Californians will cover their state income tax so to speak and what ends up happening is you're giving it away in various areas, doubling the child tax credit, all these others and then coming back to other people and saying well you can afford to pay more.

I'm a Republican. I do not vote for tax increases to shift money around. I've never done it and I don't plan to do it. So unless they're willing to have a new AMT, an alternative maximum tax that says no Californian will pay more under this system than the old, then they're not going to get my support and that's what they need to do for all three of us in California that voted no. And quite frankly, for some of those who voted yes, you probably are aware the speaker came to California directly from that vote. He sat up in orange county with 35 or 38 major donors and bundlers and told them he was going to do a California fix in the Senate. Well, I wish he had told us that as part of the House project so we could have done it.

BARTIROMO: Yes, it's a good point. Well look, what -- let me push back on this and say look, something has got to give here. You've got a $1.5 trillion plan to lower taxes, how do you pay for it? I recognize that the leadership is saying growth will pay for it. If we start getting some good growth numbers, the revenue goes up. But you know, Maya MacGuineas and the Committee for Responsible Budget is saying this is a budget buster, that in fact we're going to see additions to debt and there's no focus on actually paying for this. So what do you say to that? And then you've got people like Mick Mulvaney from the OMB saying it's not the federal government's fault that New Yorkers and California taxes are so high that they're driving people out of the states. I don't think it's up to the federal government to save New York from its bad decisions. So something's got to give, right?

ISSA: Well you know the interesting thing is that they threw in the House bill $10,000 for property taxes which means that if you're Mick Mulvaney and you own a house in the Carolinas, you've got a tax break out of it. But if you're a renter in New York, you didn't get it. So the reality is they're picking winners and losers and in some cases picking on behalf of other states. But here's the short answer and I know one of your degrees is in economics. The reduction in and the changes in business operations for both S-corps and C-corps is about $1.3 trillion. In other words, the things which will get America investing again are less than that 1.5 trillion. What happened was they did two bills. One that was about getting changing how business paid their taxes both foreign and domestic and then they separately did a whole other one for individuals.

The problem was the only pay for you really get is economic growth, and the economic growth almost all of it would come from those changes in how businesses invest. If you're able to Peter Roskam said in the last segment invest more in America, you're going to start growing the economy and creating jobs. So one of the challenges is they did something that was pretty good --I won't call it perfect -- and then they turned around and said, but we can't -- we can't do that unless we do something for sort of the masses to buy votes. Doing the right thing for the economy and buying votes are two separate things and this bill got into trouble with me when they decided to buy votes by having Californians and New Yorkers pay higher taxes in many, many cases to help support, if you will, an agenda of telling people they were going to get a tax cut.

BARTIROMO: Well, you're right. There are winners and losers. I mean, they're spending $650 billion on a family tax credit and if you don't have kids, you don't get that benefit and yet they're not doing anything on carried interest. So you're willing to go to the mat here even if it means your party loses seats in 2018?

ISSA: Well, look if we don't do the right thing we're going to lose seats in 2018. Years ago when we didn't pay for Medicare part D, when we didn't come to grips with the fact that that was going to add to the deficit, the former Speaker, then-Speaker Dennis Hastert told a group of us that if we voted for this we would be a permanent majority. Well you know, I'm not going to be fooled twice. We have to -- we have to ask if we're going to, if you will, have a deficit of $1.5 trillion in a bill, it better have a reasonable chance of actually creating economic growth. And you hit it right on the head. That family credit, it's fine, Maria, if your children are not yet in college but the odd thing is, is just when you need it most, when you're trying to put two kids through college, well, that's when it goes away. And so you're 20 years old, if you want to help them you do it without the tax credit just when you often have the greatest expenses.

BARTIROMO: Right. And also, if you have kids, no matter if you're incredibly wealthy or not, you still get the family tax credit because you have kids. It's worth looking at for sure. Congressman, it is good to see you again. Please don't be a stranger. Thanks for joining us.

ISSA: I will. Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Congressman Darrell Issa there. Up next I'm going one on one with Eric Trump. His thoughts on year one of his father's presidency, the Russia investigation, efforts to pass tax reform and a lot more as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: It has been just over a year now since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States. And as we get ready to settle in for the Thanksgiving holiday, it's good times a look back and reflect how just much has changed and happened since November 8, 2016. Who better to do that with than one of his sons. Eric Trump joins me right now to talk more. Good to see you, Eric.

ERIC TRUMP, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON: Great to be here Maria.

BARTIROMO: Wow what a year it's been. How are you doing? Tell me how your father has changed, look back for us.

TRUMP: It's incredible the amount has been done. I mean, it feels like it's gone by in just a flash. At the same time, the amount that has been accomplished is incredible. And listen, I'm here in New York but I'm proud of him. I mean, I watch him every single day and what he's done to our economy is incredible, what he's done to 401 (k) is amazing, what he's done in terms of small business and deregulation and getting this economy going again, jobs in this country, unemployment is at an all-time low, he's added close to $6 trillion to you know, our nation's economy and done so much. He's rebuilt our military, he's taken care of our veterans. I mean, the guys just done an unbelievable job and I am so proud of him.

BARTIROMO: Meanwhile the left is continuing up the attacks. The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, now talking about your brother and meetings. First of all, have you met with Robert Mueller?

TRUMP: I haven't and I've said this a million times. The Russia thing is a total sham. It is total nonsense. There is zero collusion with Russia. At the same time, you look at Uranium One. I mean, are people really naive enough to believe that somebody gave Hillary Clinton, all right, the Secretary of the State at the time $145 million for her foundation for nothing? I mean, do really -- do people really believe that?

And to me, it's such a travesty that that's not being investigated because there is something there and it smells and it looks horrible and personally I don't believe that somebody would give $145 million for nothing to Hillary Clinton, to a government official at the time. It's horrible what happened and you see all of the other bad facts and the (INAUDIBLE) of the 33,000 e-mails and everything else. You know, the fact that they will look into nonsense, something that didn't happen that they will go on tangents for weeks and weeks and weeks about nonsense e-mails and other things but they won't look into hardcore facts it's really a travesty, it's unfair to this nation.

BARTIROMO: And Hillary Clinton this past week said that it's an abuse of power for the President to be asking for a special counsel. And I've said to one of my guests, wow that's rich, an abuse of power, and he said why? And I said well I mentioned the Uranium One story because administration after administration, the Russians wanted to buy the uranium for a long time. And every administration said no, no, no, no, but under Hillary Clinton's leadership, she allowed it.

TRUMP: We're selling our uranium, the best uranium in the world to a country that is a massive nuclear power that is probably our greatest enemy in that regard, meaning you know, in terms of the nuclear scale and I mean, who does that? I mean, who comes up with this judgment that allows that to happen?

BARTIROMO: Do you think there will be a special prosecutor on this looking at Hillary Clinton?

TRUMP: Listen, I think as an American citizen, I certainly hope there would be. You know, at this point, you just don't know with our government. I mean, you just don't know. And you know, the corruption and --it's very, very sad and you know, the scales of equilibrium are -- you know, aren't necessarily always -- you know, even.

BARTIROMO: Listen, the President obviously has gotten high marks in terms of regulatory. All of his international trips seem to have gone very well, but the tax reform is there and it has to happen otherwise people are saying look, the Congress needs to get fired, the President will get impacted, what is your take on where tax reform stands? The House obviously passed its bill but do you think this gets over the finish line and on to the President's desk?

TRUMP: Well, this country, first of all, is literally dying for tax reform. We've become uncompetitive, we've lost industry because of it, wages over so many years under Obama have been totally stagnant because of it. We have to get tax reform done.

BARTIROMO: Now there are some congressmen who are saying look my constituents will see higher taxes -- by the way, your taxes will probably going to go up Eric Trump. My taxes, other people in New York might go up, so how do you sell a plan whereas you are raising taxes for a portion of the people because you're eliminating this deduction as a way to pay for the corporate tax cut?

TRUMP: Well, I'm really glad that you said that you and me and so many other people because the Democratic talking point every single time is you know, you're only lowering taxes for the rich and it's such garbage. Somebody comes out, you know, you have Schumer comes out well, it means that you know, the wealthy are going to pay less. In many cases the wealthy are actually getting paid much more, the middle class is going to pay much less. And by the way, that's all small business, right? I mean, that's how you grow this economy. You want the masses to pay less. You want them to be able to invest their money where they want in their companies and in capital expenditures for the entities higher wages for their employees and more you know, employees. I mean, you want them to be able to invest that money.

BARTIROMO: So you don't mind--

TRUMP: -- in a meaningful way which will be much more efficient than our government investing that money.

BARTIROMO: You don't mind individually pay a higher tax yourself because it's going to mean a 20 percent corporate tax rate is going to have an impact on the economy move us up in terms of growth?

TRUMP: It's good to grow the economy. It's going to add trillions and trillions of dollars. And by the way, not just the tax rate, not just kind of the trickledown of that but if we're able to repatriate all that money, the trillions of dollars overseas that haven't come to the U.S. because they would have been taxed so punitively, I mean, think what that will do. Think if you had two, three, four, $5 trillion -- no one even knows what the number is -- all of a sudden get repatriated back to the U.S. Think about what that would do to the investments, you know, the new factories that would be built, the roads, the amount of money that would go into stocks and bonds and other investments.

I mean, think about how good that would be for our nation. And right now, it's sitting in Ireland and it's sitting you know, here and there and you know, in Bermuda and all these other -- you know, countries that have a lot of great tax shelters. And by the way, they're smart -- they're smart to do that but (INAUDIBLE) best of the American people?

BARTIROMO: That's right. What has your father said about the Asia trip? Seeing with the President of China, South Korea, Japan, it looks from the optics that it was a good rapport and he's actually getting something done trying now sending an envoy to North Korea. What did he tell you about the trip?

TRUMP: Listen, he's done more to mend relationships you know, over in Asia than has been done in the last three decades by you know, any all other previous administrations. And I think having you know, three or four aircraft carriers parked right off on the peninsula really shows the might of a nation and also makes it very, very clear that we're not playing. You know, my father is not playing. That is -- believe me, you know, these aren't people who play games. They're deadly serious about protecting this nation and protecting the free world against lunacy. And they will see to it that you know, all of us are very, very safe and you know, I'm proud of that.

BARTIROMO: Eric you're a new father, how is baby Luke doing?

TRUMP: Baby is the best. It totally changed my life in so many ways that I would have never realized but it's -- you know, fatherhood is the greatest thing in the world.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. Eric Trump is the Executive Vice President, Trump Organization.

Up next, House Republicans celebrating a tax reform victory after passing their plan Thursday, but their counterparts in the Senate have some work ahead of them as the battle moves there. We're looking ahead with the panel next. Mary Kissel, Ed Rollins on deck, stay with us.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. So it is now up to the Senate when it comes to tax reform. They're planning a vote right after the holiday or right after Thanksgiving. Right now at least one Republican is a no, Ron Johnson. I want to bring in the panel. Ed Rollins is former adviser to President Reagan and Mary Kissel is here, Member of the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board. Both now Fox News contributors. Great to see you both.


BARTIROMO: What do you think? Ron Johnson is the Senator who's saying I can't vote for this because of the way they treat business pass-throughs versus a corporate.

ROLLINS: I think he's -- I think you can work him, and there's six or seven that basically are not signed on yet of the Republicans that they need. I think they're workable. I think you have to get it down to one or two -- get it down to one or two, we're going to get this thing. As it stands today the House counted their votes very well. They passed a bill that wouldn't pass in the Senate but the Senate is going to pass a bill that has to get to the House or get to the conference and I think they will.

BARTIROMO: So workable meaning you think there will be changes before it happen?

ROLLINS: Definitely there'll be changes in the conference if nothing else. I mean, you just have to -- you have to have that. That's the whole premise of doing the due process so it's not going to be one bill pure all the way.

MARRY KISSEL, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: And there are definitely deals to be done here as Ed suggested. I mean, just take the case of the small businesses, you can raise their deduction, you could and exempt them from state and local taxes, or you could repeal the individual mandate and take that more than $300 billion and use that to lower the top individual rate, which would change the spread between what the corporations pay and what the small businesses pay that Ron Johnson is concerned about.

BARTIROMO: You know, I just -- I worry about the Senate because that's where the ObamaCare repeal and replace died, and you've got personality conflicts right? Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, John McCain, they may not want that this president have a success.

ROLLINS: I think -- I think they may not but I think these three guys that are -- unfortunately John McCain is ill and won't be around a whole lot longer, but the other two, do you want your last vote to be killing taxes? This is our shot. We're not going to get another shot in the foreseeable future. And so my sense today is there's going to be a lot of work done and I think that they will -- I think Mitch McConnell is a master of this kind of legislative process, and I think to a certain extent. Unlike healthcare, we're giving people something. We're basically appeasing a lot of different groups that we need this. We now have73,000 pages plus of tax policy --


ROLLINS: -- over median words. This will be a better bill for the vast majority of Americans.

BARTIROMO: Well, you're right and if they don't get this done, Mary, they should all be fired.

KISSEL: Yes, I agree. And many of them will be fired next year if they don't get it done. But Maria look --

BARTIROMO: By the way, the President should have made relationships, so I mean if he doesn't -- if he can't get this done, maybe you know, he too. I mean, they're all to blame.

KISSEL: Yes. Well, I think they had -- the fear of God put into them after the election results earlier this month. So I think there's an urgency here that there wasn't with healthcare reform earlier in the year. But look, Maria, the three major objections just don't hold water. If you care about deficits, well you're not going to pass the entitlement reform so you have to get growth. You care about healthcare reform, fine, repeal the individual mandate, let's start down that path. You care about small businesses, fine, take that healthcare money, use it to lower rates on the individual side. None of these objections hold water and I think Ed's right. I think, look, it will be a tough slog, but there are deals to be done.

ROLLINS: And the critical thing is this is the President's priority. He has to get this through. All the rest of the stuff he's done so literally when he comes back from Thanksgiving, he has to get up on the details, he has to know what he's selling, he has to go to the country, not just the places that were favorable to him, go to the country and convince people that this is going to be beneficial. This has been a President who's been as good to business as anybody in the history of this country modern history and he's going to stimulate this economy dramatically as he already has and I think it's very important he be the salesman. He's got to go on a salesman mode, sell this baby and make (INAUDIBLE)

BARTIROMO: It's going to be a busy December. All right, stay with us. We want to check more with you. The panel continues as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Quick break right now, stay with us.


BARTIROMO: Ed Rollins, Mary Kissel, back with us talking about taxes. And Mary, you mentioned you also think it will be different when they get together in conference, the House bill, and the Senate bill. What do you think could be changed?

KISSEL: Well look, Maria, I think they could bring the top individual rate down so that the individual side here actually contributes to growth. You know, Darrell Issa earlier on this program complained because all the growth was on the business side.

BARTIROMO: That's true.

KISSEL: And you know what, it's absolutely true. The child tax credit, that is the Ivanka Trump memorial welfare program. That doesn't contribute to growth.

BARTIROMO: That's $650 billion.

KISSEL: It's a lot of money. They could take that money and give relief to everybody across-the-board but particularly in the upper-income levels that actually create jobs, create growth. You could see some concessions to Ron Johnson on the small business side but let's remember too, the NFIB, which represents small businesses, is for this tax plan. So when Ron Johnson says that he wants carve-outs, it's not just for the small businesses. You have companies like Cargill that are also pass-throughs, 150,000 employees, and $2 billion in net earnings last year.

BARTIROMO: And that's pass through? Wow.

KISSEL: And that's a pass through. So look, there are things that can be done. I think you can pick off guys like Ron Johnson, Susan Collins might be more difficult but you know we'll see. They have to get this done or they're going to pay next year.

BARTIROMO: They don't have a lot of wiggle room.

ROLLINS: No, and you have to get it down to legacy. We put the way you're working on two or three as opposed to seven which is where we are today.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Let me switch gears. Look at the Alabama Senate Race. Obviously, the calls for Roy Moore to step down are getting louder. What's --

ROLLINS: He's not stepping down. The governor made it clear she's not going to basically call postponing this election. The bottom line is voters in Alabama have a choice. Do you want to elect a liberal appointed for the next four years or basically offset everything? The other senior Senator Shelby does. We're down to one or two votes making a big difference in the Senate. So at the end of the day, there's nothing else that comes out. At the end of the day, I think it's - I think it's a very competitive race.

KISSEL: Republicans are in a terrible position. Many senior Republicans have come out and said that if Roy Moore gets elected, they want him expelled from the Senate and they could very well do that. On the other hand, it's a very deep red conservative state, you may have voters that look at him and say, well, he's pro-life and the other fellow is for late- term abortions.

ROLLINS: We start going back in trying to basically hold hearings on people what people did 30 or 40 years ago without taking sides of who's right or who's wrong.

KISSEL: I don't know about that Ed.


KISSEL: I think -- I have to say I think what's been reported is appalling. It's very, very sophisticated and solid reporting there. It looks like there's a pattern and look, if he gets elected he could be thrown out.

BARTIROMO: By the way speaking of liberals coming in, the new governor, the incoming governor of New Jersey, Mr. Murphy, is said that he's going to redo these millionaires' taxes, he's going to raise taxes but now because of the elimination of that deduction, they're needing to rethink that. So eliminating that deduction may very well change behavior over time. It doesn't happen overnight.

ROLLINS: Well the big spending states are the ones with the big taxes and obviously they're the ones that have to reduce some spending otherwise they're going to basically drive everybody out of the state.

BARTIROMO: Exactly. A lot of people expect an exodus out of high tax states. Good to see you both.

ROLLINS: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Mary Kissel, Ed Rollins, always a pleasure. That would do it for us on "Sunday Morning Futures" today. Thanks so much for joining us. I'll see you'll tomorrow morning on "Mornings With Maria" 6:00-9:00 a.m. Eastern on the Fox Business Network. I hope you'll join me tomorrow, a big program ahead tomorrow on the Fox Business Network. "MediaBuzz" with Howie Kurtz is up next. Stay with Fox News right here. Howie Kurtz is next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.