This is a rush transcript from "MediaBuzz," June 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Are you personally concerned about the conditions at these border facilities?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Yes, I am. I am very concerned. And they're much better than they were under President Obama by far.
And we're trying to get the Democrats to agree to really give us some humanitarian aid, humanitarian money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right, he might be trying, but he doesn't have a whole lot of time, because right now the House is preparing to vote on a $4.5 billion border bill. Some Democrats aren't jazzed about it. Republicans aren't crowing much for it. And the president is right now vowing to veto it.
And now his top guy at the Customs and Border Protection is saying he is out of it, as lawmakers prepare to make a holiday break from it all by this Friday, with the potential being they might not get it done at all.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."
Former acting ICE Director Tom Homan on how he sees all of this going down in just a moment.
First to Mike Emanuel in the Capitol.
They're trying to scramble and get this done, but easier said than done, huh, Mike?
MIKE EMANUEL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Neil, no question about that.
President Trump made the case several times this afternoon, the need for humanitarian relief money is huge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If we can get this bill signed, we will be able to do it. We have -- the Democrats don't want to sign anything. And now I think they're going to probably sign this, from what I understand. It's -- I call it humanitarian aid.
This isn't even about border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: The Senate has a bipartisan bill which passed out of the committee 30-1. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Democrats are using stall tactics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: I am rather surprised that the Democratic leader seems to be willing to do that, but not until Friday.
And I -- it's obvious that he feels the need to shut the Senate down, in effect, for a couple of days in order to accommodate all the members of his conference who are running for president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: The House has a different bill, which its leadership needed to tweak after hearing complaints from its liberal base.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her members the hard sell this morning, and her lieutenants are noting the need for action.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: There is a humanitarian crisis at the border. There are children who are being held in unspeakable conditions. These are God's children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: But President Trump has threatened to veto the House measures. So that means the Senate bill is likely the only one that can get passed before lawmakers leave for the Independence Day recess -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Mike, thank you very, very much.
Now, that Senate measure is certainly not a boon to many Democrats on the Hill. They said it doesn't go far enough, doesn't address the children of illegals in this country who, through no fault of their own, are kind of stuck in a Twilight Zone in this country.
Also demands here that it would call for 500 judges to be put to the border to adjudicate some of these cases. A lot of Democrats are saying, that isn't the problem. Just recognizing some of these other inherent immigration issues is.
To the former acting ICE Director Tom Homan taking sort of sense of all of this.
Tom, I'm looking at all of this. To make the president's deadline of a couple of weeks to delay deportations, that could prove problematic. What do you think brings them together?
THOMAS HOMAN, CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think the Democrats are going to bring a solution to the table that is acceptable.
I just heard that the Democratic congressman speak about the deplorable conditions in facilities, but he should have finished that saying, us Democrats are responsible for the surge of unaccompanied children coming to this country, because we have refused to close the loopholes we have been asked to close for a year-and-a-half that entices them to come.
And one thing I want to talk about, again, in FY-19 appropriations bill that stopped the government shutdown, the Democrats added language to that bill where ICE could not take action against a parent or sponsor who had their child smuggled the country at the hands of a criminal organization.
And I said when that bill got signed that unaccompanied children will skyrocket because no one is going to be held accountable. So they are to blame, not entirely to blame, but they have a big piece of this problem by taking -- taking ICE out of the game and having no consequence to deterrence. These children keep coming.
CAVUTO: You know, Tom, maybe you can help me with this.
One of the ideas that's in Senator Graham's bill would provide 500 new immigration justices that would be supposedly placed at the border to adjudicate, to deal with these cases, and quickly move on.
Now, there's no guarantee that they would all be assigned to the border. I know criticism in the past has been those assigned to the border go somewhere else. But how much would that relieve at least some of the administrative pressure?
I have been saying on the Fox Network for six months, if I was -- if I was in the administration, I would say forget about the 800,000 backlog that the immigration courts have now. Forget about it. Put it back on the shelf.
Send every judge to the southwest border and deal with those coming in right now. I would call that last in, first out. Deal with these people right now, because if you didn't have a quick hearing, 90 percent, based on the current data, will lose your case, put them on an airplane, send them home.
And that will cause the numbers to drop. So I have been pushing this for months. So I think it's a great idea. Let the backlog sit there. It's going to be there for years anyway. Let it sit there. Send every judge right to the border.
CAVUTO: You know, Tom, you're quite right to say that a lot of this got weirder with just the number of kids coming to the border, essentially, in many cases, being used as pawns, and oftentimes showing up either by themselves or with adults who weren't their parents.
Now, the Graham measure, from what I understand, would allow the kids to stay with their parents through this process for up to 100 days. But I'm wondering if that could be a good or a bad thing, whether it would encourage more to either bring their kids, use kids. What do you think?
HOMAN: No, I think, again, it's another great idea, because in FY-15, when the border surge first started happening, I built the first family detention center. We only had 100 beds at a time, so we built a new family detention center.
We held these families long enough to see a judge. It took 40, 45 days and they were ordered removed. We filled a couple planes with these families, sent them back.
And guess what happened, Neil? The border numbers went down. It wasn't until Judge G. (ph) of the Ninth Circuit says, you can't hold them that long, you can only hold them for 20 days, which wasn't time enough to see a judge, the numbers skyrocketed again.
So, 100 days would be enough time to get in front of a judge. Most will lose their case, based on the current data, because they're not really apropos to the terms of asylum. They'd be removed. That would have a big impact on this, absolutely.
CAVUTO: Now, the Mexicans have already indicated their willingness to have a lot of this done in Mexico. So the process, the paperwork, whatever you want to call it, Tom, that that's all being done in Mexico, not in the United States.
And the advantage there, we're told, at the White House is that it will dramatically reduce these numbers, and with these added judges adjudicate them much more quickly. What do you think?
HOMAN: I think there's a possibility in that last factor. I think it's good that Mexico's offering this up. I think it will help.
But I will wait to see how it happens, because there's still nothing to stop them from saying, you know what? No, thank you. I'm going to go cross the border illegally. Now the U.S. has to deal with me.
So I would like to see how that -- the framework is set up on that. But I think it's worth discussion. It's worth following up on. And it could help, yes.
CAVUTO: All right, this treatment of these children back and forth, there's been a lot of debate about it. And I always -- there was one story that caught my eye about a border professional. I think he was 21, 22.
He knew nothing about changing diapers. He had to get familiar with that. But that's not what a lot of these guys signed up for. And it's drastically changed their job responsibility.
And I'm wondering if that means that they have to be trained in this sort of stuff. It just seems unusual. But these are unusual times.
HOMAN: First of all, I would like to see them hire licensed day care, people that know children, because I have talked to these Border Patrol agents.
I was a Border Patrol agent. And I wasn't married. I didn't have children. So a lot of these Border Patrol agents, you're right. When ICE agents were transporting these children to the interior, I had my own agent say, sir, I'm 23 years old. I don't have children. Now this 3-year-old's diaper needs to be changed.
So I think Border Patrol agents are doing a great job. They're doing something they haven't been trained to do. But these men and women truly care about these children. I have seen Border Patrol agents share their meals with them. I have seen Border Patrol agents bring toys from their home, their children's toys to the facilities to give them to these children.
These men and women of the Border Patrol, they're American patriots doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances. If Congress will get off their butt and fund the supplemental, so these children can be moved to a proper facility, that will solve a lot of these issues.
But they offer the money to do this. But, at the same time, there's language in there that ICE can't get HHS data. They don't want any more funding for detention beds.
So, basically, it's extortion. We will give you money to help these families, but we're going to shut down immigration enforcement. It should be a no deal. The president needs to stand by his guns on this one.
CAVUTO: As you know, the border security chief, Sanders, stepping down, maybe in light of all of this.
Invariably, Tom -- and I know I pepper you with this question a lot. You were entertained as being a border czar. I don't know where that stands. But, once again, your name came up today in light of this.
Anyone talking to you?
HOMAN: No one has talked to me today. Look...
HOMAN: ... Neil, I will never say never. I came back from retirement for this president once. I guess I can go back retired for the third time.
HOMAN: But I'm honored that my name comes up. I really am, because I think this president is the right president at the right time in the right circumstances.
But no one's talked to me today.
I want to say Sanders, American patriot, stepped up to take this very difficult role on. So we should thank him for his service. He served this country many years. So thank him for his service.
And we will have to wait and see what happens. But I think we got to recognize these men and women step up and get beat up by Congress every day, they get called out in the media and Twitter.
I had 80 protesters at my house on a Sunday morning. We got to thank the men and women that are stepping up and doing this job. They're not getting rich, but they're getting a lot of hate for trying to defend this nation.
So thank you for -- thank you, Mr. Sanders, for serving this nation.
CAVUTO: And thank you, Tom, for joining us. I appreciate it. Thank you very, very much.
HOMAN: Right. Thank you.
CAVUTO: All right, now to the other crisis du jour right now, Iran.
You have heard about the nasty back and forth between Iranian officials and the president of the United States. Let's just say, if there was any bloom on the rose, it's gone. Now the question is, what's next?
CAVUTO: All right, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
The president making it very clear that, given the response he has been getting from Iran, these allowances he's made for the Iranians are over. The question is now what does he intend to do about the Iranians?
Kristin Fisher with the White House with more on that.
KRISTIN FISHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.
Well, about an hour ago, President Trump was asked, what message do you have for Iran after a series of blistering statements from Iranian officials overnight?
Here's what President Trump said:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There is no message. I'll tell you what with the message is.
When they're ready, they will have to let us know. When they're ready, they will let us know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FISHER: Iran's Foreign Ministry says it will never be ready to negotiate now that President Trump has imposed new sanctions on the country's supreme leader and foreign minister, calling the moves a -- quote -- "permanent closure of the path to diplomacy."
The Iranian president also accused the White House of being afflicted by mental retardation. Well, President Trump called that statement ignorant and insulting, and said any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration.
Now, the new face of the White House for this crisis and many others has just been announced. Stephanie Grisham will replace White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.
And in addition to that title, she will also take on the job of White House communications director, a job that's been vacant for quite some time. Grisham started out on the campaign in 2015, and rose to become a fierce defender of the first lady as her communications director.
And now she's going to be working for both the East and the West Wing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The first lady loves her. And I think she's been just incredible. She's very talented.
And I asked so many people, who do like? A lot of people wanted the job. In all -- a lot of people wanted to do it. And I have asked people, who do you like? And so many people said, Stephanie.
And she's here. She knows everybody. She actually gets along with the media very well, as you know. A lot of the folks in the media like her very much. And I think she's going to be fantastic. I think she's going to do a great job. So I offered her the job this morning. And she accepted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FISHER: So, Grisham is in, Sanders is out. And Sanders' last day is this Friday -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Kristen, thank you very much, Kristen at the White House.
Now back to Iran. The president making very clear in these exchange of nasty tweets or whatever the Iranian version is of that, that, I don't need congressional approval to strike Iran, going on to say that threats of new -- of force would be overwhelmingly fierce.
Retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin joins me right now.
General, I don't know the procedure here, but if he didn't use force in response to the drone downing, would he have to wait for another provocative act to act on that, or could he have a delayed response to the drone thing?
LT. GEN. JERRY BOYKIN, RET., U.S. ARMY: Yes, I think that the law and precedent all is in his favor here, in terms of being able to respond to this.
That was a U.S. drone that was shot down. So I think there could be a delayed reaction. But I think that the president will do everything he can, short of capitulation, to avoid having to go into an armed conflict with Iran.
CAVUTO: You know, he was planning a strike. It was canceled with minutes to spare.
And we're told it was because he was made aware of how many Iranians would likely die in such an attack. I think it was 150, his generals told him at the time.
Would he weigh that as much now? Or, given the Iranians' bellicose response pretty much all day today, would he be recalibrating?
BOYKIN: Yes, what we don't know is what the intelligence community is telling the president. So the answer is, I don't know.
I think he did a very good thing when he canceled that strike, because I think that he realized, from what he is told by the intelligence community, that the situation internally in Iran is very delicate. The people are not happy with their government. The people are very upset about being -- having Sharia imposed on them.
And were it not for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is very powerful, they would have already probably risen up for a regime change.
What he shouldn't do is unite them by attacking and killing Iranians, if it is avoidable.
CAVUTO: You know, General, I'm curious why Iran would -- behaving the way it is. Now, I know they have a lot of money still from the Iranian deal. And they got all the pallets of cash, billions of dollars worth, and they might have a lot of that left over. Maybe they're impervious, more than we think, to sanctions, new or otherwise.
Or maybe they have someone helping them behind the scenes, China, Russia, what have you. But it is not the normal response, you would think, in this environment, with half our fleet in the neighborhood, and a president who is ready to take it to the next level.
It's not what you would think they would be doing or acting.
BOYKIN: Well, yes.
Keep in mind, though, that there's a lot of bluster here.
BOYKIN: The Iranians, they have been down this road before, as has America.
Remember, back in the '80s, the late '80s, we actually went in there and re-flagged ships that were coming through the Straits of Hormuz with American registry. That was so that, if they attacked that ship, they were attacking America.
We also escorted ships through there. I think you're going to see some of that unfolding here in the next few weeks, unless the Iranians come back to the table.
But the alternative for the Iranians, if they don't want to talk to the Trump administration, what's the alternative? They live with sanctions, and those sanctions incrementally get worse.
Right now, they have sanctions that are crippling them. And I have talked to people inside Tehran, and I will tell you, these sanctions are hurting them a lot. And the people are growing more and more uneasy with their environment and their situation.
CAVUTO: Yes, they must have a suicide mission here they're on, just given their response. But we will see.
General, thank you very, very much.
BOYKIN: Thank you, Neil.
CAVUTO: By the way, this was weighing on the corner Wall and Broad today, among other things, less optimism for a trade deal, at least an immediate one, the Dow down about 179 points here.
There is also talk that the Federal Reserve is indeed worried about the economy. It affects trade and all of that and that it will cut interest rates. And this time, it's sunk in a little bit, to the point, as we were raising on this very show, if they're cutting, there must be a reason for that.
And maybe Wall Street was focused on the reason for that, that things might not be entirely hunky-dory.
We will have more after this.
CAVUTO: Do you ever walk into a hospital and wonder, if I'm going to here a while, could I at least get an idea of how much it's going to cost me?
Well, the president is signing an executive order kind of designed to do just that, to pressure health care providers to be more transparent about the costs, down to the aspirin you're taking. I don't know if you have ever been in a hospital, but the aspirin is about $400.
All right, I exaggerate, but to make the point that you never know,
Indiana Republican, and a member of the Senate Health Committee, Mike Braun, joins me right now.
Senator, good to have you.
SEN. MIKE BRAUN (R-IN): Good to be on.
CAVUTO: You know, it's very good to have transparency.
And I think it's all in the right direction. So, why the hullabaloo reaction from many in the health community, you think?
BRAUN: Well, this is long overdue.
In my own company, I took the insurance companies on 10 years ago. And it's amazing what light and transparency and getting your employees engaged as active consumers will do.
I made a promise to my employees that, if you work with me, I would try to hold your premiums flat, because you're going to help make cut costs.
They have not had a premium increase now into the 10th year. And it's amazing, when you emphasize wellness, not remediation, and get people involved at the same degree they would in, say, buying a big screen TV or either -- even shopping for groceries.
It's so transparent. The information is so available in other industries. Health insurance industry has led. The other big players have gone along with it to make it opaque and arcane and clumsy.
I'm glad the president came out and said, with full force, that's going to end.
CAVUTO: You know, I'm wondering, Senator, let's say all of this is very transparent, you know what you're getting into.
Do you think it's going to change the behavior of people, let's say, who are covered by insurance? They usually don't ask about the cost of an MRI, ask about the cost of a CAT scan, because their insurance covers it. And it breeds this sort of indifference to rocketing medical costs, although, to be fair, they're not rocketing as much as they were.
But that because you know, when someone is paying for it -- you're paying for it, obviously, with your insurance -- but that this won't change, that behavior doesn't change.
BRAUN: And you got a good point there, because back when I made that change, I created the real incentive to where you had skin in the game from dollar one.
There was some complaining about it, when people were used to that paternalistic system.
BRAUN: Even in employer-provided insurance, there was no incentive with co-pays to shop around and look for bargains.
I took the risk of creating that and making a bargain with my employees to cut costs, when they help me, become heavy-lifting consumers. It can work. It takes risks to do it. The health care patient is atrophied through government paid-for insurance through Medicare and Medicaid.
Every employer-provided recipient of insurance says they love it. But, Neil, it's because they have very little skin in the game. They don't pay much in the premiums.
CAVUTO: No, no, you're exactly right. You're exactly right.
BRAUN: And unless you have the willingness to create that, all the transparency in the world won't make any difference, if you are not going to use it as a consumer. That's got to go along with it.
CAVUTO: No, I think you're right. I don't think it's a Republican or Democratic issue.
I always tell people, if you're a consumer of information, you want this. And I noticed everyone was all for, particularly on the left, putting calorie counts in menus, so people know exactly how much calories they were taking in on any given meal. I would think that something like this, a lot more important, would be crucial too then.
But what do you think of, ultimately, this becoming a permanent thing, that everyone will know, wherever they go for basic medical procedures, drugs -- you can't cover everything. I understand that.
This becoming a permanent standard in American health?
BRAUN: Well, I would advise the health care industry, pharma, hospitals, doctors and the insurance companies are the ones that need to change most drastically. It would take another session to go over that.
BRAUN: But, if it doesn't happen, the industry is going to have one business partner whose name is Bernie Sanders and Medicare for all.
And everybody would regret it when it happens. And I tell the industry, are you that thick-headed? The president's now out doing executive orders. I have been doing it since I took them on 10 years ago when, as a state legislator, tried to do transparency bills, post the Medicare pricing to your charges, so there's a comparison, bust open those third-party agreements.
Couldn't even get a hearing. We're another three, four years down the road. That has changed. Employers are getting fed up mostly, because that sounds good, but we're paying the bill, and the consumer is going to have to start participating with some skin in the game, use the transparency, start knocking costs down.
And then we might have the best of both worlds and, yes, it may stick.
CAVUTO: Yes, because people will be shocked to find out the cost of some of this stuff.
BRAUN: They will.
CAVUTO: Senator, always good chatting. Thank you for taking the time.
BRAUN: Thank you.
CAVUTO: To the senator's point, free market and free stuff, the president already making an issue for the 2020 campaign. Now, will it be one for the Democrats for a different reason?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Yes, it's really a big race to who can give away the most and who can raise taxes the most.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right, so you had it with those robo-calls?
Well, now the government has a foolproof plan it says will stop them in their tracks. And our Jeff Flock is all over what they're trying to do. Let's see if it works in 60 seconds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: And they said, tax us more.
What do you think of that?
BERNIE MARCUS, CO-FOUNDER, HOME DEPOT: Well, they trust the government more than I do.
I can't tell you how much money we have given away. My foundation actually has given away over $2 billion. I would rather give it away than have some congressman give it away.
KEN LANGONE, CO-FOUNDER, HOME DEPOT: I have no trouble paying more taxes, provided it is used to redeem the futures of the young people today. What the hell am I doing? What's Bernie doing getting Social Security? We shouldn't get a check. Fix it. Make that happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right, combined, they're about 700 years old, those two guys. No, I'm kidding.
But Bernie Marcus, Ken Langone, the founders of Home Depot, were with me. And, obviously, they were very popular. A lot of people were watching that, and a lot of young people as well, intrigued by the notion that these are two billionaires who don't like this separate billionaire push for the rich to pay more taxes.
They said they'd be very open to that, but they would like to see first how the government plans to spend that and outdo what happens in the private sector to address that.
Let's get the read from market watchers Tim Anderson and Art Hogan and The Washington Examiner's Kelly Jane Torrance.
Kelly Jane, one of the things they were saying was that a lot of the Democrats lining up are targeting rich guys, the billionaires and millionaires, saying they have to pay their fair share.
These guys are saying maybe they should be as creative when it comes to spending. What did you make of that?
KELLY JANE TORRANCE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: That's a great point, Neil.
We always focus, don't we, in these presidential elections on the revenue. But what about, where is it going? Democrats always have grand ideas for what they're going to do with taxpayer money.
And here's some guys saying, listen, I actually think I know better what to do with my money than you do. I have programs. I have done -- I have given money to young people. It's a great point.
The government does give money to a lot of people who don't need it. As they pointed out, Bernie Sanders with his bestselling books, doesn't need a Social Security check.
So it's really a great point that these guys, they're not -- they're not saying, hey, we want all our money for ourselves, we want to go swim in it in a yacht. They're saying, we want to help the young people of this country. We have ideas on how to do that.
CAVUTO: Well, some of them do.
Now, Tim Anderson, one of the things that the president has said, that, if this is what you want, this approach from a lot of Democrats, not all of them, but almost to a man or woman, they are recommending hiking taxes on at least the wealthy, and then some go further than that with a wealth tax, a tax on trades.
The president says, if this is what you get and I'm undefeated -- last week, he was talking about a market crash. Do you buy that?
TIM ANDERSON, TJM INVESTMENTS: Well, the market would certainly take a significant hit to the downside.
You know, what he really means by a crash is probably up for -- up for debate. But clearly the market would have a violent reaction to the downside.
CAVUTO: What do you think, Art?
ART HOGAN, MARKET STRATEGIST: It's interesting.
I go back to what Ken Langone was talking about. And that was a great interview you did, Neil. I think that it's much more of, should we have means-testing for some of the entitlements.
HOGAN: I think that's been something that's been out there for a while. We just haven't gotten to it. I think it makes a great deal of sense.
So show that we can actually spend the money in a very -- much more efficient fashion, and you will -- it will be easier for people like Warren Buffett, who's already said this, and Ken Langone, who raise their hands and say, yes, tax me more, but let's make sure that we're being efficient in the way we spend our money.
CAVUTO: I assume you don't think we are. In other words, that some of the creativity, Art, on coming up with new tax monies -- and Bernie Sanders has shown that right now, with a willingness to consider a tax on trades and all of that.
Do you think -- and you follow this very closely, Art -- that that would change investment strategies, that people might not be inclined to be involved in the market?
HOGAN: Well, it's interesting.
There's a lot of studies that have been done, Neil, on taxing financial transactions. And, as matter of fact, Hong Kong has had one for a while, and hasn't seen a noticeable decline.
But they have. Their volumes have been down 10 percent since that started, and I'm not sure this is the place to go. I'm sure there are better places to find revenues than necessarily saying, hey, let's go after the financial services, because what you forget is, we are still going to need that capital formation.
And anything that sort of impairs that at this point in time is not going to help us as we go forward. I think that some combination of having realistic budgets, right, that we can stick to, and making sure that we are efficient in the way we spend our money as a government, and perhaps come up with other creative ways to raise revenue, but I certainly don't think a broad, sweeping financial services tax is necessarily going to work.
We have seen that it's had some failures across the globe.
CAVUTO: If I could switch gears very quickly, guys, and Kelly Jane, get a bullet response from you, this idea that the Federal Reserve is more likely now to cut rates, and people are digesting that on Wall Street and thinking, well, if they cut rates, they're worried about something.
What did you think of this very big 180 on the part of Wall Street to reconsider the impact of that?
TORRANCE: It's kind of a no-win situation, isn't it, Neil?
TORRANCE: If they weren't going to, things look great. If they are, things look bad.
But, listen, the market hates uncertainty. And there's a lot of uncertainty going on right now. And I think the Fed knows that. And it's probably going to wait as well. Got to wait to see what happens at the G20. What's going on with Iran and oil? There's a lot of going on.
CAVUTO: A lot -- yes, a lot of unknowns.
Tim, do you think if we don't get a deal, a Chinese deal -- because I know a number of officials on both sides of the planet were talking about this could be still months away. Is Wall Street ready for that? Or you think the economy is ready for that?
ANDERSON: I think the market has very realistic expectations on what to expect out of the G20.
I think the market really will react positively if we come out of there, and we -- and the feeling is, we had a very productive conversation, we're going to keep talking, we're going to go back on the track of reaching some type of an agreement hopefully by the end of the year.
I really don't think the market expects a deal to be made just between Trump and Xi at the G20.
CAVUTO: Art, there's the Iran wild card. What do you think of that?
HOGAN: You know, that's really -- I think that's one of the hardest things to predict. But it's the least economic to us. Right?
So, as we look at this and say, what's of greatest concern, that's going to raise -- it spiked oil prices. But we're much more concerned about the G20 and actually getting back to negotiating table, getting something done with the U.S.-China trade war.
CAVUTO: All right, guys.
Art, final word. Tim, I want to thank you. Kelly Jane, much appreciated.
All right, you know that Steve Moore didn't get a job at the Fed. Now he is taking on the Fed. I will explain.
CAVUTO: All right, if you can't join them, beat them?
That's kind of what economist Steve Moore is doing when it comes to the Federal Reserve, reportedly ready to start his own central bank for cryptocurrency, something like Bitcoin and all of that.
He joins us right now.
I'm way over simplifying it, Stephen.
CAVUTO: I apologize for that.
But when your name was attached to this field, it ignited sort of a new wave of interest in this field. Now, we could talk about Bitcoin. This is separate.
STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Right.
CAVUTO: But that whole phenomenon has become a new phenomenon. It was soaring again today. It's up to about 180 percent this year, obviously Facebook considering something in this field as well. Something's jibing here. What is it?
MOORE: You're so right about that. Something big is jibing here.
And, look, this wasn't my idea, that a bunch of young entrepreneurs -- by the way, they're in their 20s. They make me feel so old. They have come up with this idea of a competing currency. Of course, as you know, you have got -- you have got Facebook out their new product that's going to be unveiled sometime very soon, with billions of dollars behind it.
And what I love about this, Neil, is, I'm kind of a limited government guy. I don't like government having all the power. And for the last several hundred years, governments have had control of currencies.
And now, with these new technologies, you have got these competing currencies that will be private. And, by the way, government doesn't like this too much. You might have seen last week that the SEC and the Federal Reserve Board and the Commodities Futures Trading Corporation and other international bodies want to regulate these private currencies.
But it could be the next big thing.
CAVUTO: Well, they're worried about the unknown effect on the markets, right?
CAVUTO: I mean, if you have a rival currency, and a non -- I don't know -- you can't cite for -- where the money's coming from or whatever, they say it's an open opportunity to hurt existing currencies, namely, the dollar, it opens up the way for nefarious groups like terrorists and the mob to secretly do financial transactions and the like.
Disavow people of that notion.
MOORE: Well, let me take on the first one.
I actually think having a competing currency is a great thing. A private currency is good because -- precisely because it will keep these government currencies honest.
If you have got a currency -- let's take an extreme example -- like the Venezuelan peso, nobody wants to hold pesos right now -- right now, right? You got to have wheelbarrows full of them to buy anything.
And so this -- this is a kind of disciplinary action to be able to make sure that these currencies, whether it's the dollar, or the euro, or the peso, or the yuan, that they're not zigzagging up and down.
So I think -- you and I believe that competition is a good thing. And I think that is why I am so interested in this. And this could be the new Internet. You could see all sorts of financial transactions now take...
CAVUTO: Then why is the Federal Reserve so worried about it?
MOORE: Because they don't want the competition.
CAVUTO: The people you would have joined.
MOORE: Yes. Yes.
CAVUTO: So, if you were on the Federal Reserve, and this came up, they're obviously assembling these teams to look into it and all.
MOORE: Yes, they are.
CAVUTO: So, they're worried. Why?
MOORE: They don't like competition.
It's the same reason one company -- grocery store doesn't want another grocery store down the street. And that's precisely what I love about it.
Now, look, there are concerns about things like money laundering. And that's the argument that keeps being made. But, look, this is -- this is not for illegal transactions. This is basically to have the ability to make transactions without the government knowing what you're doing all the time.
So part of it is financial privacy. By the way, just because you or I might want financial privacy doesn't mean we're criminals, for goodness' sakes.
CAVUTO: Well, there is that.
CAVUTO: All right, so we will see what happens with Steve Moore.
MOORE: It's the next big thing, Neil. It's the next big thing.
CAVUTO: Well, clearly. They have attached your name to it now, so something's going on here.
Steve Moore, with the Heritage Foundation, economist, and who knows, a gazillionaire in the near future.
All right, in the meantime, the government now is launching a major crackdown on those annoying robo-calls. But a lot of top regulator is saying it's like Whac-A-Mole. In other words, they get something under control, and the next thing, something else happens.
But, in the meantime, I want to draw your attention to a development on Capitol Hill concerning those first-responders who just wrapped up. These are the 9/11 responders who had a meeting with Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader.
They're talking about that meeting right now.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
JOHN FEAL, 9/11 FIRST RESPONDER: Fitzpatrick, NYPD, Ward and Rich Palmer, New York City Corrections, police officer Matt McCauley, NYPD, the firefighter Rob Serra, from the FDNY, and Ben Chevat is over there from the 9/11 Health Watch.
Listen, we had a great meeting with Mitch McConnell. It was productive. Mitch McConnell made a commitment to the 9/11 community and my team leaders that he's going to help us get a piece of legislation that was -- that's going to be passing the House in July, for an August vote in the Senate.
And that's way ahead of schedule. When people were talking October, November, December, we weren't accepting that. We wanted it as soon as possible.
And to get the Senate majority leader's commitment means a lot. It means that we're all going to work now together, Republicans and Democrats and the advocates , to ensure that those affected at all three terror sites, all of those who were affected by the toxins, all of those who have cancers and serious respiratory illnesses, they're going to get the help that they desperately deserve.
These men and women, uniform and non-uniform, the children of Lower Manhattan, are sick and dying, and there are families being left in financial ruins. This bill will offer that relief to thousands of men and women across our country, because they came together on September 11 and the days and weeks after.
And now Congress has a chance to take our worst days, our worst weeks, our worst months, and certainly our worst 18 years of pain and suffering and make it their finest hour. We don't care how they do it. We just want it done.
And to get his commitment today -- and all of them in this room in the meeting heard it -- we're satisfied. Are we happy? No. We're going -- we're -- we're going to leave here.
And Luis Alvarez is going to die. And in that meeting, we gave Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Luis Alvarez's badge. And we wanted the Senate majority leader to be reminded of people like Detective Luis Alvarez.
So he's got his badge now. And if he strays from his commitment, then we will go back into attack mode. But, for now, we're going to put down our swords, we're going to pick up our rakes, we're going to farm, and we're going to be with our friends who are sick and dying.
So if you want to ask any questions, we will take them?
FEAL: Well, that was discussed.
And I think, in August, it wouldn't be able to be attached to anything that quick. So we're expecting a stand-alone.
QUESTION: Did he indicate that that is what he's willing to do? Did he promise it?
But we're going to make sure it is. We want to be left alone. We want to leave this time not like 2010 and 2015. We want to go out with a little dignity.
And we want this bill on the floor by itself, a straight up-and-down vote, without any amendments or being tied down by some bad-shit crazy, somebody in the middle of the country who just doesn't get it. And we want to be left alone after that.
And if they do try to weight it down, well, then these men, these guys are pit bulls. These guys right here are the reason why we're here today, because they were the team leaders for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 per team that were walking the halls of Congress in over 300 meetings this year, over 1,700 meetings over the last decade-and-a-half.
And that's why we're here today. And Senate majority leader and Lindsey Graham and everybody else in leadership on both sides of the aisle, nobody wants to deal with these guys. Look at them. I mean, they're not pretty.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) You have come back again and again. Is this frustrating?
FEAL: Yes, I'm frustrated. I'm angry.
I'm a ball of emotions right now, because, when I get angry, I cry. I have been to 181 funerals. I'm about to go to 182. So, yes, it's frustrating when you see a dysfunctional body of work who promises to fix yesterday's problems today, maybe tomorrow, and they don't work at our speed.
But most people in America have something that they believe in. They have a cause. And everybody should have a cause that they believe in. But a lot of them don't want to go to their state capital or the nation's capital because they don't think they're going to get anywhere.
Well, I have a mind-set different than a lot of others, because they work for us. The chairs that they put their asses in, the pens that they use, the pads that they write on, we pay for that shit. That's us. They work for us.
Mitch McConnell works for us. He works for all of you guys. And, today, Mitch McConnell promised to work for us. And I'm going to take him for his word.
QUESTION: Was there anything that he brought up of any concerns? Was there anything that kind of gave you pause, sir?
FEAL: No, because, today, we challenged his humanity, and he passed.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Would the passage of this bill mean to the legacy of the first-responders who have passed?
FEAL: That they didn't -- well, I mean, they didn't die in vain. Those who walked the halls of Congress that passed away in the previous years, like Ray Pfeifer, their efforts didn't die in vain.
There's a lot of people that -- this took a village. What you're seeing here is a small percentage of this. But this is the people that I brought down, 30, 40, 50, 60 people per trip.
And then it was those who signed petitions, and then it was those who made phone calls and e-mails to their elected officials around the country. Then it was the leaders of the unions. This literally took a village to get 535 people to get their shit together. It's that simple.
And I'm sorry if I'm cursing, but, if I don't curse, I'm going to cry. And I don't want to cry right now, because, well, it's like -- all's I keep thinking about is Luis.
So, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Can you describe the mood of the room? Was it confrontational?
QUESTION: Were you emotional?
Listen, our meetings in 2010 and 2015 with the leader were contentious. And he did it emotional. This was more, how would you say it, laid back?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Relaxed.
We came in substantive. And we covered every issue that we thought we could possibly cover. And he actually sat for this one. The other ones, he was quick to get up and leave his staff with us. And he asked the right questions.
We answered the right questions. And we're happy with the outcome.
QUESTION: Do you know his stance on things? Did he indicate to you what it was?
FEAL: Because we're the world's best pain in the asses. We don't go away. I don't know. I don't know how to answer that.
But you are going to have to ask the Senate majority leader. Was it Jon Stewart? Was it Luis Alvarez or Mike O'Connell's testimony in the Judiciary hearing?
I don't think Mitch McConnell changed overnight. I think the issue is bigger than Mitch McConnell. It's bigger than me. It's bigger than all of us. This is a generation-long battle. And even if they passed the bill at 5:00 today, people are still going to get sick and die from the aftermath of 9/11.
The object the whole time was to offer relief. The federal government lied on September 16 and said, yes, it was safe to breathe, the water was safe to drink. They lied to us. We had to fight the very people that lied to us to get legislation passed, not once, not twice, but three times.
So if you're a commonsense, thinking person, wrap your arms around that. Oh, by the way, you lied to me, but can you help me now? It makes no sense.
We played the game. We have done this for a long time. And it's really not a game. It's our lives that we're talking about.
QUESTION: What about the lapse in funding for current plans? Did he address that at all?
FEAL: That's already in the statute of the way the special master put it out on the cuts.
If you were cut 50 to 70 percent now, and when the bill gets refunded and extended, you would get a second check, and you would be made whole again. So those who are experiencing the cuts, I'm imploring them to fight, keep a roof over your head, and help is on its way, because we're going to get this done.
QUESTION: You sound pretty confident you aren't going to have to come back and go through this...
FEAL: Oh, no.
Well, listen, we got more trips ahead of us. We have to make sure that -- listen, in 2015, we had 70 co-sponsors in the Senate. We had 290 in the House. We now have 60 in the Senate and 327 in the House.
But what's wrong with that? Because last time I checked, there's 435 members in the House and 100 in the Senate. So if they really wanted to impress us, there would be 535 co-sponsors who put aside their political affiliation and their tribal loyalty-ism, and they got off their white milky asses and went over and co-sponsored.
It's that simple.
QUESTION: And to those who would balk at the price tag, if they're not on board?
FEAL: They're idiots.
QUESTION: You say what?
FEAL: They're idiots. They are tribal loyalists.
And they're not -- listen, anybody who calls them a fiscal hawk or a conservative, we have already spent trillions of dollars with this administration. So I'm not going to get into the politics of that.
We're sick and dying. We're all going to die. But we're not stupid. We have been doing this long enough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen, guys, we came down here, the seven of us, hopeful that the Senate majority leader would work for us, work with us, support us.
And we came out of that meeting, all seven of us, thankful that he did. He showed us that he's not only going to have our back, but he's going to have the American public's back, and, most importantly for us, the 9/11 community's back. So we're happy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if I can say, for the first time, he said he sensed the urgency. And he used that term himself.
And he understands that this is a successful fund. And it's doing great work. Unfortunately, there's more people sick than the money that exists in the fund currently. And he understands that.
And like John said earlier, his promise to us that he would bump this up to August is earlier than even we had expected. Now, he said not to get involved in the nuances, the politics of how this is going to happen, told us to, like, leave that to them. And that's exactly what we're going to do.
We're going to leave the politics about how this happens up to them, because he promised us it's going to happen. And like John said -- and somebody asked here earlier, are we going to keep coming down here? Of course we're going to keep coming down here, because the work of getting these people to work together sometimes comes from the people of this country who have to come here and tell their stories.
And if Mitch McConnell calls us up and says, hey, listen, I need your help, I need you to guys step up and come over here and talk to this person, then we're going to come over and talk to that person, because, like John said, this should be a 100 percent participation in both the House and the Senate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he entered the room -- when he entered the room, he made it clear that he cared about what we thought. He sat down with us, and immediately understood that -- as John said, that there was an urgency to it.
And he sat down and we had a nice discussion. And we went through the issues that were there. He understood that this was important to folks. And he understood that there are also people who are out there who are dying. And that was the point where John gave him Luis Alvarez's shield.
And he truly appreciated that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Last question.
QUESTION: What about 2090, though? Did he specifically make a commitment to stop...
FEAL: No, no.
But, with that being said, our conversation was, Republicans and Democrats, work it out, agree on something, and then bring it to us, and we will let you know if we agree with it.
So we have a number in our head. We're not going to share that with everybody. We know. Listen, the average age of the 9/11 responder was 38 years old on 9/11. You had 12 schools in the geographic zone south of Canal Street to the water.
CAVUTO: All right, you are witnessing something historic when it comes to civic power and responsibility here.
The 9/11 first-responders bill now looks like a reality about to happen, after these brave men and women who represent and they themselves are part of the 9/11 rescue hordes of the people who volunteered to help on that tragic day and in the days and weeks and months that followed, many of them dying.
In fact, more have died of exposure to toxins than were killed in the attacks themselves -- wrapping up a meeting with Mitch McConnell, and terming it one of the best meetings we have ever had.
Now, I apologize for some of the salty language you might have heard, but this represents a huge victory for these men, spurred on by Jon Stewart, among others, to say, do not ignore their plight, do not ignore their health, do not ignore their pain.
And now it appears that Republicans and Democrats agree that they can't and they won't. And this could be put up for a vote in August.
Here comes "The Five."
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.