Sen. Graham on security of our nation's capital, 2016 plans; Sen. Sanders ready to challenge Hillary Clinton?

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," April 19, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


A Florida man penetrates restricted air space, landing his gyrocopter near the U.S. Capitol, raising new questions about security here in Washington.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not good, people.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It may provide an opportunity for law enforcement agencies, including the Secret Service, to review their procedures.

WALLACE: We'll discuss the latest in a growing list of security breaches with the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz.

And our Sunday panel weighs in on who's watching the watch dogs.

Plus, the 2016 race for president is now in full swing. We'll talk with two potential candidates.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The next president of the United States needs to figure one thing out quickly -- how to be commander in chief. And I think I could do that.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: The question is, what candidate is out there prepared to deliver for the American working people.

WALLACE: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham may enter the GOP field as a national security hawk. And Independent Senator Bernie Sanders may take on Hillary Clinton from the left. We'll sit down with both of them.

All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."


WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

Well, it was a scary scene on the National Mall this week when a Florida postal work flew his gyrocopter through some of the country's most restricted air space. And it's just the latest in a string of troubling security lapses.

We'll discuss that in a few minutes with the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz.

But we want to begin with politics and a race for the White House that is rapidly heating up. Almost two dozen potential Republican candidates were in New Hampshire this weekend to win support for the nation's first primary.

And chief political correspondent Carl Cameron is there -- Carl.



Twenty-one potential White House hopefuls took the stage in the two-day first in the nation summit. This is a wide open race. And it was a huge roster -- in fact, the biggest ever for New Hampshire. Every one of the leading candidates came with something to accomplish.

(voice-over): For Florida Governor Jeb Bush, it was dealing with his biggest problem, trying to reassure conservatives that he's one of them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of us are not looking for a Republican in name only.

I don't want a coronation on our step by any stretch of the imagination.

JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I don't see any coronation coming my way --



CAMERON: Bush cast himself in New Hampshire as middle of the GOP road.

BUSH: I would match my record with anybody that's thinking about ranking, or any governor during the last -- you know, the last 20 years.

CAMERON: Florida Senator Marco Rubio who called Bush his mentor made a break at the Senate. Bush supports Common Core education standards. Rubio calls them big government usurping local education control.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I don't care what anybody tells you, those standards will eventually be used to force on states policies the federal government wants or you won't get federal money.

CAMERON: Chris Christie proposed raising the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security this week, casting himself as a truth-teller.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: You know, some people say I'm too blunt and I'm too direct, too straightforward. I think we could use some of that in Washington, D.C.

CAMERON: Kentucky Senator Rand Paul blasted the entire GOP field for criticizing Obama-Clinton foreign policy when he says they all take similar positions.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy but they would have just done the same thing just ten times over.

CAMERON: Paul would do much less. Yet, in an interview with Fox News, said he's in the middle of the GOP road on foreign policy.

PAUL: You know, I think as people find out about my foreign policy, what they're going to find out is that I'm right in the mainstream of the Republican Party. I believe the number one priority of the federal government is national defense.

CAMERON: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker closed the summit with his keynote speech.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: Tea Party to establishment from social conservative to libertarian, we all -- what people want more than anything is they don't just want a fighter. They want someone who fights and wins. Some --


CAMERON (on camera): Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush got a cordial reception, but it wasn't exactly ruckus. Lindsey Graham by far and away came across as the most at ease and got points for the most jokes. Scott Walker did well. And Chris Christie who needed a good performance, seems to be making a little headway in New Hampshire -- Chris.


WALLACE: Carl Cameron reporting from New Hampshire -- Carl, thanks for that.

Now, let's bring in one of those potential Republican candidates, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

Senator, I want to start with the headline on Web site this week which says Lindsey Graham loses his mind for saying the man who flew down the National Mall in a gyrocopter this week should have been either forced down or shot down.

Are you serious about that?

GRAHAM: Deadly serious. I think our nation's at war with radical Islam. The primary goal of these groups is to attack our nation. Washington's a prime target. This many years after 9/11, with this many groups warning to hurt us at home, I'm just astounded that somebody could do what he did.

I'm glad he's not hurt but that just shows how far our defenses have fallen. And this president constantly minimizes the threats we face as a nation. I will not be part of that.

WALLACE: Now, some people may say, Lindsey Graham loses his mind for seriously considering running for president in 2016. Carly Fiorina --

GRAHAM: Yes, OK --

WALLACE: Carly Fiorina told us a couple of weeks go that there's a 90 percent chance that she will get into the race. What's the percent chance you're going to get in?

GRAHAM: Ninety-one.

WALLACE: Seriously?

GRAHAM: Yes, I think so. I've got to put the means together. I think I've got a good message. I think I've done more right than wrong on foreign policy. I've criticized the president for being weak and indecisive. I've been a problem solver in Washington and I think I've got something to offer the party and nation. I'll make that decision in May. If I can raise the money, I'll do it.

WALLACE: Here's why some people are skeptical. And let's put some issues up on the screen.

You believe that climate change is real and the federal government must address it. You're open to raising attacks as part of a grand bargain. You support comprehensive immigration reform.

In your home state of South Carolina, you are at this point running fourth behind Walker, Bush and Cruz, and 65 percent of those polled in your home state say they would not consider voting for you for president.

Are you too moderate? Are you too far in the center on nondefense issues to win the Republican nomination?

GRAHAM: Not at all. I believe climate change is real, but I reject the cap and trade solution of John -- of, you know, of Al Gore. He's made a religion. It's a problem.

I would like to clean up the air and water, become more energy independence, create jobs. I'm for offshore drilling. I'm for finding oil and gas that we own. I'm for coal, I'm for clean coal, I'm for natural gas but I would like a lower carbon economy over time. Clean up the air and create jobs in the process.

WALLACE: Raising taxes as part of a grand bargain?

GRAHAM: I'm for Simpson-Bowles. It doesn't raise taxes, it closes loopholes and takes the money we would give to a few people and put it on the debt. We're $18 trillion in debt, 80 million baby boomers are going to retire in the next 20 to 30 years. We're going to wipe out Social Security and Medicare.

We have to adjust the age retirement for younger people. People of my income level are going to have to have their benefits means-tested. Democrats are going to want a simpler tax code.

So, I'm for eliminating deductions and taking some of the money to buy down rates and put it on the debt. That's not raising taxes. That's solving a problem.

WALLACE: So, Senator, why do you think -- I understand it's early, but why do you think you run so poorly in your home state?

GRAHAM: Well, if I didn't think I could win South Carolina, I wouldn't be talking to you. I just had a primary with 60 opponents, I won by 41 points. I've been elected numerous times in South Carolina. If I'm on the ballot, I'm going to win South Carolina.

WALLACE: All right. I want to do a lightning round, quick questions, quick answers with you about --


WALLACE: -- about some of your opponents up. You say Marco Rubio is too afraid of the right wing of the Republican Party.

GRAHAM: Well, Marco Rubio, I think, will be president some day. Whether 2016 is his time, time will tell. He embraced immigration reform. He seems to have backed off. I'll let him explain why.

I think comprehensive immigration reform while securing your border and dealing rationale with 11 million is the only way we're going to solve this problem. I like Rubio.

WALLACE: You took Ted Cruz to task for saying the Second Amendment is the ultimate check against government tyranny.

GRAHAM: Yes. The ultimate check against government tyranny is an informed electorate who will elect people who believe in limited government. I don't want to embrace the idea we want people to take to the streets with guns. I want people to go to the voting booth and check an out of control government by electing conservatives.

WALLACE: As for Rand Paul, you've been very critical of his national defense security policy, are you convinced that his recent tougher stand on some national security issues is genuine?

GRAHAM: I hope some of it is but he's the libertarian in a race, the Lindsey Graham via foreign policy is going to beat Rand Paul's libertarian view of foreign policy. It will beat Barack Obama's view of foreign policy. It will beat Hillary Clinton's view of foreign policy.

He said at this summit that a terrorist detained under the law of war at Gitmo is entitled to a trial. I've been a military lawyer for 33 years. A member of al Qaeda or their affiliate group can be detained under a law of war as long as their threat to our nation without a trial.

He wants to fight a crime. I'm fighting a war. Big difference.

WALLACE: Let's talk to the nuclear talks with Iran. President Obama made some news this week when he seemed to indicate that he would be willing to lift sanctions faster than seemed to have been agreed to in the framework deal instead of waiting until the -- Iran has implemented all the restrictions in the deal.

Here's what President Obama had to say.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn't abide by its agreement, that we don't have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions.


WALLACE: Senator, what do you think of that -- some people are reading as yet another concessions to the Iranians?

GRAHAM: I think Barack Obama is -- deal is deteriorating before our eyes. Don't think there's a snowball chance in hell that a Congress is going to approve this framework the way it's set up. The ayatollah saying he gets immediate sanction relief with no intrusive inspections.

I will release today nine core principles of what I think a good deal will look like. Any time, anywhere inspections of military/nonmilitary facilities will be a bipartisan must. So, this idea that we can't go where we need to go is gong to fail. The Chinese are talking about building five reactors for the Iranians. Any nuclear program -- enrichment program must be limited to one reactor. At the end of the day, you can't lift sanctions until the behavior of Iran changes. They can longer be a state sponsor of terrorism before you lift sanctions down the road.

So, I think the framework presented by President Obama is completely different in the eyes of the Iranians and Congress will look at this, will have a say -- will vote before we lift congressional sanctions. And I don't think there's any chance we're going to lift congressional sanctions as long as you have hardened sites like Fordow still open.

WALLACE: Wait a minute, because you're talking about the Corker/Menendez bill, which passed the Senate Reform Relations Committee unanimously, looks like it will pass the house and Senate, and Congress has 30 days after the deal is finally presented to approve it or to disapprove it.

You're saying there's no chance -- I mean, let me ask you because there's a flip side of it. It isn't that Congress has to approve, what could happen is they can disapprove it and then the president vetoes it, and then all he needs is 34 votes, for instance, in the Senate to make his veto stand up.

Are you saying he's not going to have 34 votes in the Senate?

GRAHAM: I'm saying if there's a final deal that doesn't require any time, anywhere inspections, that the Senate will not go along with that. I'm saying that if you keep hardened secret sites open, you're not going to get Senate approval.

Nobody in the Senate on a bipartisan fashion trusts the Iranians. They lie. They cheat. They're a murderous regime. They've been trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

The framework that I've been presented with has to be turned into a final deal and there is no way that we're going to approve a deal that doesn't allow for inspections any time, anywhere, remove all the highly enriched uranium and limit their nuclear enrichment program to something -- for one reactor that can never be used to make a bomb.

I'm highly confident, given the Iranian behavior of turning the world upside down, that the framework, if it does become a final deal, is going to have a hard time getting through the Senate because it is so weak.

WALLACE: But just real quickly --

GRAHAM: And we need to --

WALLACE: We're running out of time.


WALLACE: It doesn't have to get through the Senate. It's the question as to whether or not the president's veto would stand up. Are you saying you think the Senate would override his veto?

GRAHAM: If the final agreement doesn't allow any time, anywhere inspections, it has a large enrichment programs, it keeps Fordow, an underground secret site, reinforced site open that he will get his -- it will be rejected large enough to override a veto because members of the Senate understand that this is the most consequential vote we will ever take and the Iranians can't be trusted, they lie, they cheat. And this deal, in my view, would allow too many opportunities for them to break out.

I'll wait and see how it looks on paper, but if you don't have any time, anywhere inspections, forget about it. I just don't think any Democrat or Republican is going to agree to allow that to become binding.

WALLACE: Finally, Senator, we got about a minute left. There was an article in "The Washington Post" this week, I must say, told me a lot of things I didn't know about you. It detailed the fact that when you were at the University of South Carolina as an undergraduate, you lost both your mom and your dad within 15 months and that you basically brought up and supported your then-13-year-old sister, Darlene.

Some of your friends suggested that might have been a reason why you never got married. We can't you on the psychiatrist's coach.

But how did those traumatic events, how did they shape your life, sir?

GRAHAM: It changed me. It made me realize that the promise of tomorrow is just a promise, that I assumed things early on. I never assumed again.

It taught me how much I was loved by the rest of my family. My aunt and uncle helped me raise my sister. Social Security survivor benefits coming into my sister made a world of difference. I moved in with an aunt and uncle who helped raise my sister never made over $25,000 in their life working in textile plant. My mom's disease, Hodgkin's disease, wiped us out financially. We eventually lost our businesses. I understand we're all one car wreck from needing help.

But what it told Lindsey Graham, above all else, is that family, friends and faith really do matter. I'm a lucky man to have had all the support I've had all these years. And I'm trying my best to pay back a country who's been so good to me. I love my sister.

And to all those who have helped me all those years, thank you so much.

WALLACE: Senator Graham, thank you for sharing that. Thank you for coming on. Always good to talk with you, sir.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

Up next, another potential contender, independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who may take on Hillary Clinton from the left.


WALLACE: A look outside the Beltway at Bakersfield, Vermont, the home state of our next guest, who's also weighing a presidential run in 2016. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders is considering taking on Hillary Clinton.

And the polls have both good news and bad news for him. In the latest average of national polls, he's far behind Clinton, but he runs ahead of the two other likely candidates, Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb.

Senator Sanders, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Good to be with you.

WALLACE: Senator, you say that you are considering running against Hillary Clinton, among other reasons, because you doubt whether or not she's willing to take on the billionaires in America.

Here's what she said during a rollout in Iowa this week.


HILLARY CLINTON (D), 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days.


WALLACE: Senator, don't you believe her?

SANDERS: Well, she's absolutely right. It's not a question of running against Hillary Clinton or taking on Hillary Clinton.

What we're seeing, Chris, right now is that for 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing. Millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages despite a huge increase in technology and productivity. And what we have seen during that period is a massive transfer of trillions of dollars from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America -- massive wealth and income inequality, where you have 99 percent of all new income today going to the top 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America --

WALLACE: But, Senator, you --

SANDERS: -- owning as much as the bottom 90 percent.

WALLACE: If I may, you told Bloomberg you had serious doubts about whether she was willing to take on the billionaire class. What are those doubts?

SANDERS: Well, that's it. Yes, but it's -- my point is, it's not just Hillary Clinton.

WALLACE: I'm asking about Hillary Clinton, though, sir.

SANDERS: The answer -- if I can, please. The answer is that I think that is the fight that we have to wage if we're to save the middle class. And I do have doubts about whether Hillary Clinton or whether any Republican candidate out there is prepared to take on the big money interests who control so much of our economy and as a result of Citizens United, our political process as well.

WALLACE: But Clinton says that she wants to be the champion of the middle class. Again, here she is in Iowa this week.


HILLARY CLINTON (D), 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. And there's something wrong with that. There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker.


WALLACE: What does Senator Clinton or Secretary Clinton need to do, Senator, to persuade you that she's the one to take on this fight?

SANDERS: Well, what she said is absolutely right. I mean, I think from a moral issue, CEOs should not be making -- whether it's 270 or 300 times more than their workers are making.

But what we need to do, Chris, is to understand that in America, if we're going to be successful in taking on the billionaire class, we need a strong national grassroots movement.

What the secretary will have to convince the American people is, in fact, based on her past record and views today that she is going to break up the major banks on Wall Street. She is going to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. That she's going to end the abomination of major corporations making millions of dollars, stashing their money in the Cayman Islands and not paying a nickel in income tax. That, in fact, she's prepared to deal with this -- our disastrous trade policies. The TPP --

WALLACE: Let me ask you about the trade policy because back when she was secretary of state, Clinton said she favored a trade deal with our 11 Pacific partners and fast track authority to make that happen. That's something Congress is now considering.

Now, Secretary Clinton says she wants to wait and see. Is that an issue for you, vis-a-vis Secretary Clinton?

SANDERS: Oh, Chris, that is -- Chris, you're looking at a guy who was in the House and the Senate, voted against all of these terrible trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trades relations with China. As I'm sure you'll remember, all of the big money interests.

And, by the way, Republicans and Democrats, they say, oh, we'll create all these jobs by having a trade agreement with China. Well, the answer is, they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Over the years, we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. These trade agreements have forced wages down in America so the average worker in America today is working longer hours for lower wages.

WALLACE: So, is that a test --


SANDERS: So, I don't have to wait and see.

WALLACE: Is that a litmus test --

SANDERS: Chris, I'm against this trade --


WALLACE: Is that a litmus test for you, to see whether or not Clinton is going to come out against the TPP?

SANDERS: Well, I -- I know where my view is. I hope very much the secretary comes out against it.

I think we do not need to send more jobs to low wage countries. I think corporate America has to start investing in this country and create decent paying jobs here.

WALLACE: Let me talk to you about Bernie Sanders now, not Hillary Clinton.

You call yourself a Democratic socialist. One of the things that you favor is a single-payer health care system. But that has, in effect, fizzled in your home state. I want to talk about why.

When single-payer would have meant 11.5 percent increase in taxes on all businesses, and a 9.5 percent tax hike on individuals, the Democratic governor in Vermont dropped the plan as unfeasible. This is in your home state of Vermont. They said, we just can't afford the single-payer.

SANDERS: Let's take a look at what's going on around the world in terms of health care.

WALLACE: Sir, if I may -- if I may, sir, I'm asking about a specific question of Vermont.

SANDERS: Sure. And the answer is --

WALLACE: They had a plan to impose a single -- or implement a single-payer health care system in Vermont and the Democratic governor ended up dropping it.

SANDERS: Well, for a variety of reasons he did. But the United States remains the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of our people. And yet we are spending almost twice as much per capita. We have a massively dysfunctional health care system. And I do believe in a Medicare for all single-payer system, whether a small state like Vermont can lead the nation, which I certainly hope we will, or whether it's California or some other state.

At the end of the day, we need a cost-effective, high-quality health care system, guaranteeing health care to all of our people as a right.

WALLACE: All right. You also --

SANDERS: I do believe that. We don't have it now.

WALLACE: I want to get as much as we can into this, sir.


WALLACE: You also want a 50 percent cut in military spending at a time when ISIS and al Qaeda are on the march --

SANDERS: What does that cut, Chris? I'm sorry?

WALLACE: I'm sorry.


WALLACE: No, I don't.

But I do believe -- what I do believe is that there is enormous waste in military, in Department of Defense. The Department of Defense can't even audit itself, massive cost overruns.

Of course, ISIS is a terrible organization that has to be defeated. And, of course, we need a strong military. But just as with every other agency of government, you know what, the military also has got to get rid of waste and fraud and cost overruns.

So, I want a strong military. But I do not believe, among other things, that without an audit, we should be throwing tens of billions of dollars more into the Department of Defense.

WALLACE: Final question, sir. And it's sort of three-part. When are you going to decide whether you're going to run? How are you going to decide whether you're going to run? What are the chances you're going to run right now?

SANDERS: Well, I think we'll make that decision pretty soon. Not dissimilar from what Lindsey Graham had to say. You know, when you've got these super PACs and billionaires able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the candidates of their choice, making sure have you the money to run a credible campaign is very, very important. And that's one of the factors we're going to have to determine.

WALLACE: Well, he said it's a 91 percent chance he's going to run. How about being as specific as he is?

SANDERS: Well, we'll see. We're working on it and we'll make the best decision we can within the near future.

WALLACE: And real quickly, if you run against Secretary Clinton, do you really -- realistically, you've been in politics 35 years. Do you realistically think you can win or is this to make a point and to try to bring her closer to you on some of these issues?

SANDERS: Chris, good question. I would not run unless I thought we could win. I think there is a lot of discontent out there on the part of ordinary people who feel the system is grossly stacked against them.

WALLACE: Senator Sanders, thank you. Thank you for joining us. Please come back, sir.

SANDERS: Thank you very much.

WALLACE: Up next, our Sunday group analyzes a busy week at this early stage of the presidential race. And what do you think about who's up and who's down for 2016?

Let me know on Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday and use the #fns.


WALLACE: Hillary Clinton striking a populous note as she rolled out her run for president. And it's time now for our Sunday group. Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume. Jackie Kucinich of "The Daily Beast," GOP strategist Karl Rove and Fox News political analyst Juan Williams. Brit, what do you make of Clinton's first week as a formal candidate?

BRIT HUME: She is at a state, I think at her political live where she is who she is and she is what she is. And it's not a member of the proletariat. That doesn't mean that she couldn't have the common touch. She could, but I don't think she does. Her husband had it. FDR who was certainly a rich guy and a blue blood and all that had that. But Hillary doesn't. and she's doing her best to establish it in a way. I don't think it will go very far, but I'm not sure how much it will matter. She's got no real pressure for the Democratic nomination. And, you know, she's trying to present herself in a more favorable light than she apparently did in Iowa eight years ago. And, perhaps, she'll succeed in that. But at the end of the day, she is who she is.

WALLACE: Jackie, what struck you about Clinton's rollout? And I want to pick up on a question I was going back and forth with -- with Bernie Sanders about. Is she going to have trouble campaigning as the champion of the middle class going up against big money when she and her husband have such a long history with $300,000 speeches and million dollar contributions, multimillion dollar contributions from foreign governments to the foundation?

JACKIE KUCINICH, THE DAILY BEAST: Yeah, I think it is a hard -- it's a hard move for her to pull because she was also making $200,000 for speeches not too long ago. So, that's why you're hearing it is emphasis on the populous rhetoric. That's why you're hearing her say these things so she can kind of mitigate that idea. But I will say I think it was very telling when she was talking about hedge funders and she was talking about reducing their -- about how much they make. When you saw the Wall Street reaction, they kind of were like, nah, they're not too worried about it. So, unless there's action ....

WALLACE: Because, what, they just think she's ...

KUCINICH: They think it's going to be fine. They don't really think anything is going to happen.

WALLACE: And that Hillary Clinton will be a friend of the Wall Street.

KUCINICH: Hillary Clinton at the end of the day will be a friend of Wall Street.

WALLACE: There was also a lot of action on the Republican side with Senator Marco Rubio formally getting into the Republican race. And he took a shot at Hillary Clinton. Here it is.


SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Just yesterday a leader from yesterday, began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday.


WALLACE: Karl, what are Rubio's chances in the field, especially against his political mentor, Jeb Bush? And when you look at 21 potential candidates up in New Hampshire this weekend, how do you sort out the Republican -- how will it sort itself out?

KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Well, he'll be a strong candidate. He's after the strong start. He's clearly in the first tier. He's probably prepared himself better than anyone else for this moment. He went out and no one paid attention, but in 2013, in early 2014, he made seven substantive speeches about policy, that showed he was educating himself about the issues, figuring out where he stood and as launched into this with one of the most important things a candidate can have, which is in understanding the issues that go together to make up a message. So, he's off to a strong start and will be in the first tier. But how do you sort out 21 candidates? I think by the end of the date we're going to have really 15 or 16 -- and ...

WALLACE: 15 or 16 declared candidates.

ROVE: 15 or 16 declared candidates on the ballots in the four states to begin this process in February. And I think it's still going to be confused. I think by the end of February, we're likely to be down to five or six candidates who have tended to be towards the top in these four contests and seem to have the message and the resources to fight it on through. But it's not going to be easy. And particularly going to be difficult when we come around to debates. The first debate is in August. And how is the Republican ...

WALLACE: On Fox News.

ROVE: On Fox News. And how is the Republican National Committee going to trim? They've said they want to have a reasonable number of participants and they're going to set triggers based on the standing in the polls and the amount of money raised. And that's going to keep some of the more flamboyant candidates that we have from being on the stage. And so, we're going to have an ugly mess as we get closer to the August.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about before I bring in one, one other candidate. Chris Christie who kind of re-emerged this week, made a strong speech about reforming entitlements, especially Social Security. Is he -- how much trouble is he in and to what degree do you think he can breathe the life into a campaign, which in 2013 after he was reelected, he was the front runner, but he's out of tough year.

ROVE: But his campaign -- he has got to campaign while things are still being you know, the sort of Damocles is hanging over his head -- until that U.S. attorney says, here's my final decision and we're done, he's got difficulties. I thought what was interesting about this is it shows two things about him. One is, he's willing to be bold. He went out there and said, here are specific things that I do to tackle entitlements. And second of all, it shows that he's not panicking. He understands that his fate is going to be determined largely by what this U.S. attorney does. And in the meantime, he's not going to panic. He knows that he's in a hole and he's going to dig his way out of the hole by being bold, and by being straightforward and direct. I thought it was a good recovery. He's clearly not in the first tier of the candidates where he was a year ago.

WALLACE: Juan, I want to switch subjects with you. And I want to ask you about the hold-off of the confirmation vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the first black woman attorney general. President Obama went after the Republicans hard on that this week.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's gone too far. Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote. Get her confirmed. Put her in place. Let her do her job.


WALLACE: Now, Lynch was nominated almost six months ago, back in November. I guess I had two questions. One, what do you think of the holdup of the nomination? And two, do you think it's something that Republicans -- that Democrats can use effectively against Republicans and make them pay a political price for holding up the nomination of a black woman to a top position?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, and the answer to your first question is, I think this is more political than racial. But, yes, there is a big risk for the Republicans in a race, especially with Hillary Clinton as a likely Democratic nominee in a contest that will focus on the possibility of the first woman president to be six months suspending up the nomination of a black woman, who is imminently qualified. I think both sides say she's been a skilled prosecutor, tough on crimes, tough on terrorism, just terrific and she's being held up. The second risk again in a year of women is, the abortion issue in terms of the human trafficking bill, is what -- is causing this delay. And ...

WALLACE: And holding up her nomination until they settle this issue about a human trafficking.

WILLIAMS: Correct. And what Mitch McConnell has said, because now there are five Republicans who said they will vote with the Democrats to confirm it, there's a vote as you saw President Obama calling for, she'll be confirmed. This is all about Mitch McConnell, and they say, let's hold up on this till we get these other issue settled. And that again creates something that Democrats will be able to use to beat Republicans about the head in terms of the war on women.

WALLACE: Let me just ask you, Karl, we have got a about a minute left. At a time when Republicans want to show that they're reaching out to minorities, does it make sense, political sense to hold up this nomination?

ROVE: No, it doesn't. From that perspective. But here's the other perspective. The Democrats are using the human trafficking bill's language that's been there for 40 years, regarding the use of federal funds for abortion. They're saying, our price for passing this bill, the high ( ph) language in the -- language in the trafficking bill is, you've got to remove it. And so the Democrats -- the Republicans have got very few levers to say to the Democrats, we want to keep in place the language that's been approved on a bipartisan basis for 40 years. That's what this is all about --

WILLIAMS: That stuff is lost in the weeds..

ROVE: I get it. I get it. I get it. It gets lost in the weeds. But nonetheless, it is an important point of principle. And it's important to remember, Democrats are trying to undo like 40 year bipartisan agreement that no federal funds will be used for abortion in a bill that has ...

WALLACE: Do you continue to hold up?

ROVE: Well, look, I'm not a senator. And I say, I see it both ways. But the Republicans in the Senate are trying to do this. And the Democrats are trying to play to the abortion crowd by saying, let's undo the language that's been there for 40 years.

HUME: The votes are there to confirm her. When this is straightened out, she'll be confirmed and presently, she'll be our Attorney General, and the votes by an overwhelming vote. And all of the rest of this will recede into the background as detail and I don't think it will be around long enough as an issue to affect in one way or the other.

ROVE: And Democrats don't want to have vote in the Senate to undo the language. They want the Republicans to remove the language so they don't have to go on the record saying I'm in favor of using federal funds for abortion.

WILLIAMS: But Karl, the Republicans ...


ROVE: Do you think Joe Manchin -- do you think Joe Manchin wants to vote?

WILLIAMS: The Republicans hid this language ...


ROVE: He wants to go ...


ROVE: The Democrats.


ROVE: It was right there in the bill. And the Democrats (INAUDIBLE) voted for it.

WILLIAMS: And now they are punishing this black woman. That's crazy.

ROVE: Juan, it really gets -- it's dangerous for you to keep doing this kind of staff and for me having to correct you. The language was in the bill. The Democratic sponsored.


ROVE: No, it wasn't. The Democrat sponsor admits it was in the bill and she voted for it.

WALLACE: This is why God invented commercials. You can continue (INAUDIBLE).


WALLACE: We're going to take a break here. When we come back, the gyrocopter incident on the capitol lawn raises new questions about security in the nation's capital. We'll talk with House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz. Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the long string of security lapses? Just go to Facebook or Twitter @foxnewsSunday and we may use your question on the air.


WALLACE: Now you can connect with "Fox News Sunday" on Facebook and Twitter. Be sure to check out exclusive materials online at Facebook and share it with other Fox fans and tweet us @foxnewsSunday using #fns. Be part of the discussion and weigh in on the actions every "Fox News Sunday"


WALLACE: A look at Oklahoma City, where they're remembering the 168 people killed and hundreds more injured in the bombing of a federal building there 20 years ago today. This tragic anniversary comes as Washington is still reeling over a shocking security lapse here this week. Joining us now, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz. Congressman, let's go back to that astonishing video from this week, which we've been looking at repeatedly, of a postal worker flying down the National Mall highly restricted area 56 and landing on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. NORAD, the FAA, the Secret Service, the Capitol police all have jurisdiction. Who do you hold responsible for this security breach, sir?

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, (R-UT), CHAIR, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, one of the problems is, you have 32 federal agencies -- or 32 law enforcement agencies that I should say within Washington, D.C. with some degree of jurisdiction. And so you worry about the coordination and the communication. But certainly the Capitol Hill police, the United States Secret Service, which were evidently notified well in advance, this person had foreshadowed that they were going to come in and do this, but then you need to have visibility. And so, you look at NORAD and just the basic flight control coming out of Reagan about whether or not you can see what's coming towards the airport and towards the National Mall.

WALLACE: Your staff is drafting a letter to the Secret Service, which as you point out had interviewed this fellow twice because he had put out on the Internet the fact that he was thinking about doing this as far back as 2013. What else is your committee considering doing to try to rectify this situation?

CHAFFETZ: Well, they're going to be giving us a briefing to myself and Elijah Cummings at the Oversight Committee and other committees that want to join. That's going to happen. We needed a few days for them to sort out their story. But "The Tampa Bay Times" had reported an evidently, at least in their reporting, had said that they had called the Capitol Hill police, called the Secret Service 30 minutes prior. Now, I could say, as a member of Congress, we usually get an alert if something is going to happen at the Capitol. That never happened that day. All we got was the all-clear at the end. And so, I got a lot of questions about what did they do? Who communicated with who? And what are they going to do about it? Because unfortunately, Chris, that aura of inevitability that law enforcement will prevail if somebody jumps over a fence, or has a drone or does a gyrocopter, that shine has gone away. And so, unfortunately, I think we're going to have more and more of this. So, what are they going to do about it?

WALLACE: As you point out, this is the latest in a long line of security lapses. Just last month in March, two Secret Service agents drove into an active bomb investigation near the White House last September. Of course, that man jumped the fence and actually got into the White House. Chairman, I got to ask you, and I know he's been up before your committee. Do you still have confidence in Secret Service director Joseph Clancy?

CHAFFETZ: Well, before when there were fence-jumping incident happened, there was an independent panel put forward by the director of the -- Secretary of Homeland Security. Unanimously they said they wanted somebody from the outside who could be that transformative figure to really change the Secret Service. Mr. Clancy is a wonderful human being, but he isn't that transformative person. So, I have got real -- I have real concerns about it. Remember, a woman drove up outside the White House, dropped off what she said was a bomb and then she just drove off. There wasn't this net that took her down and captured her. It took them two days just to capture this deranged woman, evidently. And how does that happen time and time again in this day and age?

WALLACE: Well, you say you have serious concerns. Let me press the point. Are you -- do you think we need a new Secret Service director, especially given the failure of the Secret Service in this latest case?

CHAFFETZ: Well, we're going to give them a chance this week to come in and explain what it is they knew, what sort of communication, were they in contact? Did they proactively decide not to take this person down? If they did want to take them down, what were they going to do about that? I have long said that I think Director Clancy was the wrong choice by President Obama. But I have not called for him to be fired at this point or to step down. I have, with the case of the DEA that -- the hearings that we had this week, but I got real concerns about what are they doing proactively and what are they going to do in the future? Because this is going to happen again.

WALLACE: I want to pick up on what you just mentioned because you've had hearings in recent weeks, not just with the Secret Service, but also with the Drug Enforcement Administration. And that was over a case where it turned out that in Colombia some DEA agents had been involved in so-called sex parties that were being paid for by the drug cartel that they were supposedly trying to police. And interestingly enough, both when you talk to Clancy of the Secret Service and also to the head of the DEA, they both told you they can't fire somebody just because of allegations of misconduct. Take a look at this.


JOSEPH CLANCY, SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR: I don't have the ability to just fire people at will. In the government, I don't -- my understanding is you cannot do that.

MULVANEY: Everybody else can be fired. Why can't you fire people that work for you?

MICHELLE LEONHART, DEA ADMINISTRATOR: Under the civil service laws, I can't intervene in the disciplinary process.


WALLACE: Chairman, is that true? Can't these people be fired and can't you -- if that is true, can't you do something about it?

CHAFFETZ: Well, what you can do and what you can inject yourself into is revoking these people's security clearances. And as was -- we heard testimony, if you don't have a security clearance, you can't work at the Secret Service. You can't work at the DEA, so I'm not buying it. Remember, after there was a high-profile incident down in Colombia, they did fire a number of Secret Service agents and they later fired some DEA agents. But when they were caught again, they had done that. They had just literally given these people between 2 and 14 days paid leave. And that sounds like a vacation to me. So, I'm not buying that. Are there changes in law? We're going to look at making those changes.

WALLACE: Chairman, I get about 30 seconds left. Do you think that we're getting sloppy, that these many years after 9/11 we're letting down our guard? And what's the implication for national security?

CHAFFETZ: When you don't take somebody down and take them down hard, you say they were never getting to the Capitol, they're never getting in the White House. When you don't do that? Guess what, you've got some real deranged people and probably some more sophisticated terrorists who is are going to take a shot at us. That can never, ever happen. These are no-fail missions. They can never-ever fail. And we have got to make sure that these agents, these people on the front lines, know that we've got their back. Take them down, even if it's harsh, and it won't happen again.

WALLACE: Congressman Chaffetz, thank you. Thanks for coming in today. We'll be on top of this, sir.

We want to continue this conversation now with our panel. Karl, you were the deputy chief of staff at the White House under George W. Bush. Are those agency heads correct that basically no matter how much these folks mess up in what they're doing, that you have to go through a long, arduous civil service process?

ROVE: I think that's right. And you can revoke their clearances and send them to Siberia, but to actually fire them, it's difficult. And what we learned here in this particular instance is that apparently it's not just, you know, rain or snow, nor sleet nor hail that could keep a self-appointed mailman from his appointed rounds, apparently neither the Capitol police could. You know, we're focused on the Secret Service, but it's the Capitol police who have principle responsibility for the area around the Capitol. So, I hope here's a top to bottom behind the scenes review of all of these procedures. This guy got in a gyrocopter in Gettysburg, flew under the radar all the way to Washington and came -- What if he had had rather than petitions to Congress had had a bomb? And I hope they look at these procedures.

Let me say one quick thing about Clancy. I agree with the commission that they should have brought somebody in from the outside. That was not President Obama's decision. But Clancy -- Joseph Clancy is a first-rate individual who if anybody from within the Secret Service can turn it around, he can turn it around, but he needs to have the time and the tools to do so.

WALLACE: We ask you for questions for the panel. And we got this on Facebook from Michael Pander who writes, "Why do these people have their jobs when they are not doing their job? They should be fired if they cannot do their job." Juan, how do you answer Michael?

WILLIAMS: Well, if people can't do their job, they do have to be fired. There's not any question about that. That's self-evident. So, but Michael, I would say we need less emphasis on the hysteria and the fear and the firing and more emphasis on the idea that we are an open democratic society. We -- you know, Pennsylvania Avenue's closed off people who live here. No, this is ....

WALLACE: Are you saying the guy in the gyrocopter should be able to ...

WILLIAMS: No, we have to focus, Chris, on closing gaps for these low-flying aircraft and the drone -the drone that landed on the White House lawn.


WILLIAMS: So, we have to address that. But we can do that sensibly. But this idea that we should be more militaristic. Senator Graham this week said we should have shot down this mail carrier. Goodness gracious, if he had been a black Muslim, maybe we would have. But I don't think there's any need to shoot down ...

WALLACE: Whoa, whoa.

KUCINICH: But they shot that woman who drove her car and led police on a chase, so that's happened. And so, this is very serious. And what struck me about this, how you saw officials joking about this guy and flying his copter onto the lawn. It's not funny. This is serious. And the lack of -- I think that's where the complacency comes in. When you see someone like Secretary Johnson kind of laughing about this in retrospect. And that shocked me.

HUME: There's a pattern here. It's a pattern of management failure. Secret Service, DEA, Veterans Administration, department of HHS trying to get that health care website up and running. Across this sprawling (inaudible) bureaucracy we're seeing this pattern of repeated management failure. And that's the larger picture here that I think needs to be looked at. Is this government is not well managed. It's not well and efficiently run and it needs to be. We need better people. But above all, we need leadership and better management.

WILLIAMS: I agree with that, but I'm just saying that we don't need to be the Kremlin here. We have so many police forces. You heard what Congressman Chaffetz said.


WILLIAMS: I think he said there are 32 agencies ...

HUME: In addition, the county (ph) police are pretty good on the portion of parking.


WALLACE: Wait a minute. I'm a little surprised, Juan. When he was in the air, we didn't know what he was carrying with him. He could have been carrying a bomb. He could have been carrying a chemical agent. So to sit there and say, well, we shouldn't have shot him down, but you didn't know what he was carrying.

WILLIAMS: No, but I don't think that we need to be extreme and hysterical and start shooting anything. We need to close that gap and make sure that --

ROVE: I would. I would.

ROVE: I would shoot him.

HUME: He was ...

ROVE: You would shoot anybody, a vehicle coming down the mall, you don't know who it is, you -- headed toward the Capitol.

HUME: Can you shoot it down or not?

WILLIAMS: No, I said no. I said no.

HUME: No matter what?

WILLIAMS: Not no matter what. If I know that this is a direct threat -- by the way, they should have known what was happening. If there's incompetence that you're talking about, mismanagement.

ROVE: Yeah, I agree with that.

WILLIAMS: It was that they interviewed this guy. Apparently "The Tampa Times" knew he was coming and told them two hours before. That's the ...

HUME: No, they still ...

WILLIAMS: But to start shooting everybody and -- everybody.

HUME: Everybody? Not everybody flies down the mall in a gyrocopter towards the Capitol.

ROVE: Well, I'm with Lindsey Graham on this one.

HUME: Shoot them down.

ROVE: Yeah, and now that he wasn't shot down, throw the book at him. But that's not going to dissuade a terrorist. What's going to dissuade the terrorist, is the idea they get in, if they violate the no-fly standards in Washington ...

HUME: Down they go.

ROVE: Down they go.

WILLIAMS: You know what -- I mean with me, was that they let the guy out of jail so quickly. I thought for sure, he would stay in jail.

WALLACE: Well, you were the one who was talking about the Kremlin. You know, we do have habeas corpus here and we do have bail. Thank you, panelists.


WALLACE: See you next week. And we'll be right back with a final note.


WALLACE: A look at the unveiling of a banner honoring the victims in the terror attack on the Boston marathon two years ago. They're running that race again tomorrow. For more on that and the race for the White House, stay tuned to this FOX station and FOX News Channel. And that's it for today. Have a great week. We'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.