Sen. Moran: It’s time to set aside our political rhetoric and resolve our differences on border security
Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran says the border security conference committee can reach an agreement if their party leadership does not interfere.
This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," February 3, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Super Bowl Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I’m Maria Bartiromo.
Joining us straight ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right here, two very influential Republicans, Congressman Jim Jordan, the ranking member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, and Senator Jerry Moran, a member of the Appropriations Committee, on President Trump’s State of the Union address this upcoming Tuesday, and whether the president should declare a national emergency for the border wall.
Also ahead, Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee is here, the chief deputy whip, on where Democrats stand over wall negotiations. The congressman is also a member of the House and Ways and Means Committee, and he will tell us what he thinks about the more liberal members of his party calling for a massive tax hike on the rich.
Also ahead, he is known as the oracle of A.I. -- this exclusive with Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, the former head of Google China, now a venture capitalist, on why 40 percent of jobs will be disrupted by artificial intelligence within the next 15 years, plus his take on the U.S./China showdown.
All that and a lot more right here, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."
And we begin with President Trump this morning saying that he doubts congressional negotiators will reach a deal on the border wall. And with the deadline the government fast approaching, the president says there’s -- quote -- "a good chance" he will declare a national emergency to get it done.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We will be looking at a national emergency, because I don’t think anything’s going to happen. I think the Democrats don’t want border security.
And when I hear them talking about the fact that walls are immoral and walls don’t work, they know they work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: The president mulling the decision to go around Congress, as Speaker Pelosi maintains that the wall is simply a nonstarter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation. What did he say today? Congress is -- it doesn’t matter what Congress does?
I knew that he wanted it all to himself. I mean, oh, really? A president who wants to have Congress be completely irrelevant in how we meet the needs of the American people? No, come on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: Joining me right now in this exclusive interview, Republican congressman from Ohio. He’s the founding member of the House Freedom Caucus. He’s also the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and serves on the Judiciary Committee as well, Congressman Jim Jordan joining us right now.
And, Congressman, it’s good to see you this morning.
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Good to be with you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Thanks so much for joining us.
JORDAN: You bet.
BARTIROMO: Can you give us a status check? Where are we in these talks over border security, up against this February 15 deadline?
JORDAN: I don’t know that the position is any different today than it was seven weeks ago.
I think the president’s right. It is tough to negotiate and get an agreement with people who are more focused on stopping the president than they are on helping the country.
I always say -- remember, 10 years ago, both then Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, both of them said they were for money for border security wall, money for a barrier. And, of course, today, the Democrats have taken just extreme positions.
I mean, we got -- we got Congressman Blumenauer -- Blumenauer from Oregon saying that ICE should be abolished. You got Secretary Clinton, when she ran for president just a couple years ago, saying we need a borderless hemisphere. You got, as the president said, the speaker of the House saying walls are immoral.
And look who’s giving the Democrat response to the State of the Union on Tuesday night, Stacey Abrams, who just three weeks ago said she thinks it’s OK if non-citizens vote.
So when you -- when you start with that kind of position, it’s tough for the president and tough for Republicans to actually get agreement with the Democrats. I don’t know that, again, we’re any different than where we were a few weeks ago. And the president’s probably right. He will have to, I think, at some point go with a national emergency to get the border security wall done.
BARTIROMO: So nothing really has changed. You were among those pushing the president to dig in, keep the government closed. Was all of that worth it?
JORDAN: We were pushing the president to do what we told the American people we were going to do, which was secure our southern border and build a border security wall.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out. What are we on now, the fifth caravan forming, going to be here any day now in Texas? So it doesn’t take anyone -- anyone with common sense can see we need a border security wall, we need to secure our border. We need to reform our asylum laws, if we’re going to address the problem, if, as the president says every day, I think, if we’re going to deal with the drug problem, if we’re going to deal with the human trafficking problem, if we’re going to deal with the gang problem.
What was it, the bust just this week, 50 -- enough fentanyl to kill 57 million Americans?
BARTIROMO: Yes.
JORDAN: So this is serious. The president understands that.
We were supporting the president and encouraging him to do what he said and to do what we told the voters we were going to do in 2016, when they elected us.
BARTIROMO: Well, we have talked about the fact that Nancy Pelosi has a wall in her own state many times on this program. So it’s -- it’s a head- scratcher how she could call a wall immoral, knowing that she has this wall in -- separating Tijuana from San Diego in her own state.
Do you think the president will call for a national emergency during the State of the Union on Tuesday night? Should he do that?
JORDAN: I don’t know if he will then. I do think, as he said just the other day, he is seriously considering that. I think we may be to the point where he has to do that. But that will be the president’s call.
What I know is, the president is committed to securing the southern border, committed to building a border security wall. That’s what he told the American people he was going to do. That’s why they elected him. And he’s committed to getting that job done.
BARTIROMO: So, we understand from senior administration officials that there are five areas that the president is going to touch upon in Tuesday’s State of the Union, a safe and legal immigration system. Number two, protecting American workers on trade deals, including China and NAFTA.
Number three, rebuilding America with respect to infrastructure. Four, lowering costs for health care and prescription drugs. And, number five, protecting national security.
Now, the president has talked recently about the fact that a wall is already being built.
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: More than 100 miles has already been built.
Where is that money coming from, Congressman? Is there money in government that he can use to begin this build out?
JORDAN: Yes.
Yes, there’s some in the Homeland Security budget that he can use right now. And the law allows him to do fencing and to secure the border, particularly when there’s a drug problem. Obviously, there is, based on what just happened this past few days ago, this past week, when they -- when there was a drug bust, and 57 -- enough fentanyl to kill 57 million Americans.
So, yes, the president can do that. He’s doing that as we speak, I think going to do more of that. But to get the full border security wall done, you either need an appropriation from the legislature, appropriation from Congress, or you need the president to declare the national emergency and do it there.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
So I believe the president said that he’s expecting 115 miles to be completed in the near-term future.
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: So you’re saying part of the money for that is coming from confiscation of drug money?
JORDAN: Well, it’s what -- it’s in the Homeland Security budget. And it’s money that hasn’t been appropriated.
Constitutionally, Congress has to appropriate dollars. But money that’s there that hasn’t been actually spent and appropriated, the president can use that to construct border security fencing under current law.
To build the border security wall, he would need to declare an emergency or Congress would need to pass language which says, we appropriate these dollars for a border security wall. And that’s been the hangup. Democrats won’t negotiate with us, even though they said just a few weeks ago, you open up the government, Mr. President, we will -- we will negotiate then.
The president says, OK, I will give you one last chance. He opens up the government. And the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi say, oh, nope, we’re not for a wall.
BARTIROMO: Well, that must be why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is out, saying, cut -- cut funding for the Department of Homeland Security, because she must know that there’s money there that the president can use for this.
How much money are we talking about?
JORDAN: I believe there’s $500 million that’s -- that’s there that he can use now, without any appropriation -- any -- any act from Congress.
BARTIROMO: I see.
JORDAN: Under current law, he can do that.
BARTIROMO: OK, because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling to cut funding for DHS. You know that.
JORDAN: Again, I think it underscores the radical position today’s left has taken, abolish ICE, cut funding. Walls are immoral.
We said this. If walls are immoral, Speaker Pelosi, where’s the legislation that you have introduced to take down the wall between Tijuana and San Diego? I don’t see legislation from Democrats to do that. So it must work there, but, no, no, it can’t happen anywhere else.
And then, as I said, the Democrat response to the State of the Union is the gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who said just a few weeks ago that she thinks it’s OK if non-citizens vote. That is -- that shows the radical position. And, still, the president is trying to negotiate and get this done for the American people.
But, unfortunately, it’s difficult, when they take that -- when they start from that position.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, I want to switch gears and ask you about the Mueller probe, ask you about what you’re doing on the Oversight Committee.
Of course, we know that Adam Schiff has a different set of priorities than you do.
So let’s talk about -- let’s slip in a quick break, Congressman, and then talk a bit about that.
JORDAN: Sure.
BARTIROMO: You have got a lot of hearings on the horizon in the next week.
Please stay with us.
JORDAN: OK.
BARTIROMO: As the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, we want to get your take on everything about what comes next in pursuing the FISA investigation, and when special counsel Robert Mueller could complete his report, whether it ever will go to the public.
Join me.
And we will be right back with that. And follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures, as well as on Instagram. Tell us what you would like to hear from Congressman Jim Jordan next up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
And we’re back with Congressman Jim Jordan, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
And, Congressman, we just talked about the State of the Union happening this upcoming Tuesday. We’re previewing that today.
Another anticipated event this week was the appearance of President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen before your committee.
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: That’s not happening now. Why not? Give us a status check.
You sent a letter to your colleagues at the DOJ to find out why this is being moved. Tell us what you what you want to know.
JORDAN: Well, yes.
We do know he is coming in a closed-door hearing in front of the House Intelligence Committee. But it was supposed to be in an open hearing in front of the Oversight Committee this Thursday. That’s been postponed. We don’t know if it’ll be on or not. Looks like it’s not going to happen.
I think it’s interesting, though. The Democrats made a big deal of this, having Michael Cohen in an open hearing in front of the Oversight Committee a few weeks back, made a big announcement, their first big hearing, their first big witness coming to testify in front of Congress.
And yet, in 31 days, he’s going to go to prison for lying to Congress. So, look, Michael Cohen, we -- we -- our staff met with his lawyer, Lanny Davis. Mr. Davis told our attorneys on the committee that Mr. Cohen couldn’t talk about any of the investigations, couldn’t -- I mean, so, think about that.
If he can’t talk about any of the investigations, what are we going to ask him? So I think it was all designed and still is all designed to come in and have Mr. Cohen say bad things about the president.
BARTIROMO: Oh.
JORDAN: I don’t know that that’s something that a congressional committee should be doing. We will see if he makes it or not.
BARTIROMO: I see. So this is a lot more bluster and P.R., so that we can have a hearing to hear him trash President Trump.
Let me ask you, because I believe it’s almost a year to the day that Adam Schiff, now the head of the Intel Committee, sent a letter disputing all of the things that you and your colleague managed to uncover about FISA abuse, about what the behavior was at this...
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: From this cabal of people at the top of the FBI and the DOJ during the 2016 election.
They have been disputing your facts for a year-and-a-half right now. But we learned a lot after the Bruce Ohr testimony. Tell us about it.
JORDAN: No, exactly.
Adam Schiff did his memo one year ago. And, remember, his memo was to try to undermine what Devin Nunes in his memo had to say. And in Schiff’s memo, he says this. He says, the Republicans mischaracterized the influence of Bruce Ohr on the whole process and -- and talk about a misleading timeline relative to Mr. Ohr.
When he deposed Bruce Ohr, he said -- he shared three key facts with the FBI that I think disproves Mr. Schiff’s memo. He said, first of all, fusion was connected closely with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, who put together the dossier.
He said, my wife, Nellie Ohr, works for Fusion GPS. And the person fusion hired, Christopher Steele, has a deep bias against the president, so much so that Christopher Steele told Bruce Ohr himself -- because Bruce Ohr met with him several times -- that he is -- that Bruce -- that Christopher Steele was desperate to stop Trump.
So, those three key facts -- Fusion is connected with the Clinton campaign, his wife, Nellie Ohr, works for Fusion, and Chris Steele, the guy who wrote the dossier, has a deep bias against the president -- Bruce Ohr communicated that with the FBI, also with the Department of Justice, specifically Andrew Weissmann, who’s on Mueller’s team.
And the most important fact, Maria, is that he communicated that -- those key pieces of information to the FBI and the DOJ prior to the election, more importantly, prior to when the FBI and the Department of Justice went to the FISA court to get the word to spy on Trump’s campaign.
BARTIROMO: So, for...
JORDAN: That is huge.
BARTIROMO: Yes, that’s huge, because, for a long time, Adam Schiff has been saying, oh, they didn’t know that this was a Clinton-paid-for document, they found out after September.
But we know from this testimony that, in fact, meetings were happening as early as July of 2016.
JORDAN: Adam Schiff specifically says in the memo that Bruce Ohr’s communication with the FBI with anything relative to the dossier took place after the election and after the October 21 FISA application was taken to the FISA court.
That is not accurate, based on Bruce Ohr’s testimony to us in his deposition.
BARTIROMO: Well, you are now in the minority. You no longer have subpoena power on the Republican side.
Where’s the accountability for this?
JORDAN: Well, we’re going to keep doing everything we can as Republicans.
You’re right. I don’t think Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings are going to push and try to get to the bottom of this. But we’re going to keep doing everything we -- we -- that we think needs to be done to get the truth out to the American people.
We have specifically asked the Justice Department to give us the OK to release all the transcripts from Andy McCabe, to Bruce Ohr, to Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Nellie Ohr, all the people we have talked to. We have asked the Justice Department for that. We’re still waiting on that.
We also need to know what Mr. Huber is up to, frankly, John Huber, who was appointed to look at the -- the -- how the Clinton investigation was handled in the Justice Department, and, maybe more importantly, how the FISA process -- were their abuses in how this FISA was done specifically relative to Carter Page?
BARTIROMO: Well, last week, we had your colleague Congressman Devin Nunes on the program.
And he said, look, he’s happy that the DOJ is recognizing that lying to Congress is a crime, as -- which is the reason Michael Cohen is going to jail, but that maybe you should start questioning and bringing back people like the list you just named, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, because did they lie to Congress?
JORDAN: Well, there’s some discrepancies that -- there’s some things we will have to look at in their -- in their -- in their testimony.
I think there’s some concerns there. We do know that Jim Baker, former chief counsel at the FBI, is the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department. And, obviously, Andy McCabe is also under investigation by the Justice Department.
So we will see how those two cases shake -- shake out as well.
BARTIROMO: What -- what is your take on Bill Barr coming in as the new attorney general? Will he seek the truth?
JORDAN: I hope so. I have not spoken with Mr. Barr.
I think he did a nice job in his confirmation hearing. I think he will get confirmed here sometime, I believe, in the next week-and-a-half. So, we look forward to him getting to that position and looking at all this information we have uncovered in our congressional investigation.
It’s important that, I think, he examine everything. Remember, we have interviewed 14 witnesses over the last year. It started with Andy McCabe in December of 2017, all the way up through Loretta Lynch in December of ‘18.
And all the key players in -- Jim Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, all the key players in between, there’s some important information that I -- that I’m sure and I hope that Mr. Barr will look at and then move from there.
BARTIROMO: Within Adam Schiff’s letter, his response, it says that Bruce Ohr was a minor player.
JORDAN: Not true.
He met with -- he met and talked with Christopher Steel and Glenn Simpson, Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele multiple times. And after each and every encounter that he had with Christopher Steele or Glenn Simpson, he went directly to the FBI and briefed them on what that conversation was about.
At least 13 times, he did that. He wasn’t a minor player. In fact...
BARTIROMO: Yes.
JORDAN: ... he took evidence. He was part of the chain of custody of evidence, certain things that he took from his wife and from others and then passed to the FBI as part of this investigation.
BARTIROMO: Real...
JORDAN: He’s a major player.
And -- and for Adam Schiff to try to downplay his influence is absolutely wrong.
BARTIROMO: Really quickly here, Congressman, Robert Mueller’s report, when are you expecting it? Can it be credible without him looking at what you have called FISA abuse?
JORDAN: Well, I think there’s real concerns with how the FISA process was handled. We will see when it comes public.
What I do know is, also, another big hearing this week, Matt Whitaker, the acting -- Matthew Whitaker, acting attorney general, will be in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.
These are some questions we plan to ask him as well, see if he will give us any indication of when Mr. Mueller’s report will in fact be completed.
BARTIROMO: Because I believe it was he who said it’s getting close.
JORDAN: Yes, Matt Whitaker did.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
JORDAN: He said it was getting close.
And we will ask him. I’m sure he will get asked about that this Friday, when he’s in front of House Judiciary Committee.
BARTIROMO: We will be watching that.
Thanks very much, Congressman. Good to you see this morning.
JORDAN: You bet, Maria. Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Congressman Jim Jordan joining us.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s been very vocal, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the president will not see any money for the border wall.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think Nancy Pelosi should be ashamed of herself, because she’s hurting a lot of people. I think the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
Now, in all fairness to the Democrats, many of them want the wall. And I see it. They’re just dying to say what they want to say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: So are there other Democrats who might be willing to break with their leader to strike a wall funding deal by February 15?
We will talk to the chief deputy whip, Dan Kildee, next, Democrat from Michigan, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I watched them the other day. I watched a couple of high-ranking Democrats trying to explain that walls are not necessary. Really? They’re immoral.
What is immoral is when people come into our country and kill innocent victims. If you look at the San Diego area, if you look at many areas where you have the wall, you look at Tijuana, if we didn’t have a wall in Tijuana now, you would have people coming in by the tens of thousands.
But we have a wall. It’s an old wall. It’s not a good wall. And it still works.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: That was President Trump making another border wall pitch, as he says there’s a good chance he will have to declare a national emergency at the southern border to fund the wall.
Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi calls the wall immoral, but is getting a lot of attention for the one in her own state, which we have been speaking about now for the last month-and-a-half.
Joining me right now in an exclusive interview is Chief Deputy Whip Michigan Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee. He sits on both the House Ways and Means and Budget committees.
And, Congressman, it’s good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.
REP. DAN KILDEE, D-MICH.: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Is there any progress that you can report, Congressman?
Because let’s kick it off right here with what the president just said about wall in Tijuana. We have got a picture of the wall. And we have talked about this with many of your colleagues on this program in the past several weeks, that there is a wall in Tijuana -- now separating Tijuana from San Diego.
On the other side of the wall in Tijuana, there are three million residents. On the other side of the wall in San Diego, there are another three million residents. This is one area that’s very dense. If you take that wall down, most people agree that the people in Tijuana will assimilate themselves into San Diego.
Do you disagree with that?
KILDEE: No.
And I don’t really know anybody that does. I think we have to remind ourselves that border security is comprised of a lot of elements. Democrats and Republicans have agreed on that for decades.
We all have supported physical barriers where they make sense. What I think the debate really should focus on is what the professionals say about where technology is best utilized, where border fencing should be utilized, where concrete barriers may make the most sense, and I think where most of us wish there was more conversation, around those areas that have to do with immigration and border security that relate to other elements.
For example, I believe the best path for us to take would be to have a comprehensive approach to this that deals with the border security issues around which we may have some disagreement, but also deals with larger immigration issues that we know sooner or later in this country we’re going to have to get around to solving.
That would be my hope, that we could look at this in a more comprehensive way, the way, for example, the Senate did in 2013.
BARTIROMO: So are you saying that you would be poised to agree to a deal with your colleagues on the right to put money forth that goes toward technology, toward more border agents, toward drone technology, whatever that might be, as well as a physical barrier in certain areas where it makes sense?
Is that what you’re saying?
KILDEE: Sure.
And I think -- I don’t want to get ahead of the conference committee members. I think this is really an important process, where you have Democrats and Republicans, the House and the Senate, sitting across the table, hopefully, with good will.
I know that any compromise that comes out of that process, if there is one, will contain elements that I wouldn’t like, but that in the big picture, that’s what our government really is all about, coming to some kind of compromise, knowing that what seems like really hard and fast positions taken by people going into those negotiations have to be compromised, have to somehow arrive at -- we have to arrive at some common ground.
And I wish that people on this whole issue would stop hyperventilating...
BARTIROMO: Right.
KILDEE: ... and just get down to the business of trying to find some middle ground.
I do think it’s particularly unhelpful for the president to make a declaration that, regardless of what the conference committee does, he’s going to get his way one way or the other.
I don’t believe the president absolutely has the authority to declare an emergency in any instance that he disagrees with what the Congress comes -- comes to agreement on.
I think the president -- and I will say this. Many of my Republican colleagues, particularly senior members in the Senate side, share that view...
BARTIROMO: Well...
KILDEE: ... that this is not a case where the president can use his emergency powers to do something that won’t have a result for another five or 10 years.
BARTIROMO: But isn’t it true that what you just said can apply to Nancy Pelosi as well?
She has said umpteen times there will be no money for any wall anywhere. There will be nothing -- there will be $1, not more than that, because a wall is immoral.
But, in fact, isn’t there a growing group of colleagues on the left, your colleagues, that say exactly what you just said, which is practical, that there should be money for everything, including, in areas where it makes sense, a physical barrier?
But the -- but the speaker has said otherwise. She said, no wall under any circumstances, even though there’s a wall in her state.
KILDEE: Well, but she did -- she did indicate a willingness to support infrastructure.
And I know in the past she has said, where it makes sense to have physical barriers, we support physical barriers. So I think it’s -- it’s OK for folks to have very strong views going into the negotiation. And I think it’s really good that they articulate those.
But I think we have to commit to accepting the outcome of that negotiation. One other point that I think is really important. Under no circumstances should this disagreement, whether it’s resolved or not, result in a government shutdown.
In fact, I have legislation that I will be introducing in the next week that essentially outlaws shutdowns. I think this is a tool that damages the American people. And we ought not be able to default to a shutdown because we can’t get our work done and come to some agreement over an issue that has legitimate different points of view.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
Isn’t it true, though, that the area we’re talking about, the southern border, is in fact very dense, just like the area between Tijuana and San Diego, a lot of people very close to each other where perhaps that’s one area where a physical barrier would work, like the Tijuana wall?
KILDEE: Well, the southern border is over 1,000 miles. I think we have to look at it in each particular instance.
BARTIROMO: Right.
But aren’t there areas of that -- that there are areas in part of that, part of that region where a wall would make sense because of the density?
KILDEE: Well, where the professionals, where law enforcement and security professionals have said we ought to have secure areas with border walls or fencing, we have supported that in the past.
Let’s remind ourselves that the position that the president carved out initially was the result of a chant at a rally, a wall from sea to shining sea paid for by Mexico.
So even he doesn’t believe what he once believed on this. So I don’t think anyone can paint themselves of having pure positions on this that are unchangeable.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
KILDEE: And I just think we ought to try to figure out a way to get to the middle.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, I want to take a short break.
When we come back -- you’re on House Ways and Means Committee. I have got to get your take on some of these new ideas on taxes.
And, also, I want to ask you the question, what is the bigger threat for the workers in Michigan, your constituents? Is it technology, A.I.? Is it China, or is it illegal immigration taking their jobs?
Because, as far as I can see, your constituents are under attack.
We will be right back, Congressman, with that.
KILDEE: Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
We are back with Chief Deputy Whip Congressman Dan Kildee.
Congressman, let me ask you about these ideas on taxes.
You’re on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, your colleague, wants to raise the tippy-top rate for earners up to 70 percent. Right now, that rate is at 37 percent.
Michael Moore, the director, said that she is the leadership of your party. Your reaction to this. You’re on House Ways and Means. You were basically the architect, you and your colleagues, of the tax cut plan which moved the needle on economic growth, even though you didn’t vote for it.
KILDEE: Right.
And I disagreed with the tax plan that was adopted by Congress in the last Congress. I think it was a step in the wrong direction, in the sense that it gave far too much of the benefits to the people at the very top.
I don’t believe, however, that we should simply throw things in reverse and go back to where we were. I think there’s some benefits that came from that tax proposal. I just think far too much of the benefit went to the people at the top.
But I don’t start with the idea that we ought to have a particular rate. I do think we need a fairer tax system, for sure, in order to properly share the responsibility for the elements of a civil society and provide the support that it takes for everyone to have a chance.
Personally, I would say, let’s start with Social Security, because there’s the tax element of Social Security. If we’re going to get this right, if we’re going to make sure that we have the underpinnings of a civil society, let’s start with the most successful social insurance program in the history of the world, and make sure that we look at whatever tax policy changes need to be made to strengthen Social Security.
BARTIROMO: Right.
Well, we know -- we know that the tax cut plan lowered taxes for all income levels, and that the corporate rate cut was really the centerpiece of the plan.
Are you saying the corporate rate should not have been cut?
KILDEE: Well, I’m saying, if the corporate rate was going to...
BARTIROMO: Should the corporate rate still be at 35 percent?
KILDEE: Well, here’s the problem.
The corporate rate is one element of it. But what we expected that would happen is that the -- if the corporate rate were to be cut...
BARTIROMO: Right.
KILDEE: ... that all the other benefits in what we would call loopholes would be offset, so that the corporate rate might come down, but the net effect is broader base, lower rates.
What the tax change did...
BARTIROMO: Well, they did take away all of those -- all of those benefits as well. There are no more deductions.
KILDEE: No.
BARTIROMO: But let me ask you this, because...
I’m sorry. Go ahead.
KILDEE: No, no, they did -- they didn’t take away -- they didn’t take away all those benefits for the -- for corporations, not at all.
BARTIROMO: What benefit?
KILDEE: That’s the unfortunate part of it.
BARTIROMO: What benefit are you referring to?
KILDEE: Well, for example, the ability -- what did they do on carried interest? What did they do, for example, on the ability to write off the cost of moving manufacturing operations overseas?
Those are all deductible expenses still under the tax code. I think that was a mistake.
BARTIROMO: There’s a lot of conversation now that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the extreme radical left.
And that is a path that Howard Schultz has found for himself, to be a centrist in this race. Do you feel your party has been -- has been hijacked all the way to the radical left?
KILDEE: No. And I don’t really know where that idea comes from.
I know a lot of folks on the progressive end of our...
BARTIROMO: Well, it comes from 70 percent tax rates, abolish ICE, Medicare for all. Those are three items that people will point to.
KILDEE: Well, those might be positions that some members hold.
BARTIROMO: And, of course, the abortion issue as well.
KILDEE: Right.
Those might be positions that some members hold, but I don’t see any evidence that that’s the broad view of every member of Congress.
BARTIROMO: No, it’s not. You’re right.
KILDEE: If you look at the new members of Congress, for example...
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: You have said some very practical things this morning.
KILDEE: Right. Well, I hope so anyway. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: Let me ask you this, Congressman.
KILDEE: But if you look at the new members of Congress that have just come in...
BARTIROMO: Yes, go ahead.
KILDEE: I was just going to say, the new members that have come in are comprised of a whole spectrum of new members.
A lot of them don’t get the attention that I think maybe they should. There are a lot of members, for example, that have really strong national security backgrounds.
BARTIROMO: Right.
KILDEE: I point to my colleague, just my neighbor, Elissa Slotkin, who I don’t think anyone would say is out of the mainstream in terms of American political thought.
BARTIROMO: OK. So, you don’t..
KILDEE: There are a lot of folks I think that represent the broad spectrum in our party.
BARTIROMO: Real quick, Congressman, let me ask you you question that I did before we went to break.
Who is a bigger threat in terms of your constituents in Michigan? Is it China, technology, A.I., or illegals taking their jobs? Because I think it’s a combination of all three. What do you think?
KILDEE: Well, I think it is -- for the most part, it is -- well, technology obviously hadn’t -- has had an impact on manufacturing. That’s clearly a threat.
But China, for sure. When China can produce cheap steel and dump it into global markets, that undermines the ability of our manufacturers to compete.
And I think, until we get trade right, in a way that ensures that our workers can compete on an even playing field, those other factors are important, but they’re not going to be as important as getting trade right.
BARTIROMO: So, you think we will get a deal by the deadline? I assume you’re happy, then, the president pushed back on China, then?
KILDEE: I was glad that he pushed back on China.
I wished that it would it -- it would have been done in a multilateral fashion, because what we ended up doing was essentially penalizing Canada for China’s misdeeds. I think that was a mistake.
But the president wasn’t wrong to take on China when it comes to its dumping of steel. I’m glad that he did that. I just wish that we had a more strategic approach. And I wish we had a sense of what the endgame looked like.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
KILDEE: We will see.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, it’s good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much.
KILDEE: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: We appreciate you joining us, Congressman Kildee joining us.
I want to bring in Kansas Republican Senator Jerry Moran right now, a member of the Senate Appropriations, Banking and Commerce Committee.
And, Senator, it’s good to have you on the program this morning.
Your reaction to what you just heard in terms of border wall funding? You’re on the Appropriations Committee. Can you give us a realistic sense of whether or not the money is there to build this wall and whether or not there will be agreement on this in the next two weeks? SEN. JERRY MORAN (R), KANSAS: Well, that is certainly asking a lot of me, Maria.
The money is there. It can be found. In the overall scheme of things, while $5.7 billion for a wall, the amount that the president requested, is billions or lots of money -- and I would never say anything to the contrary -- within the overall funding of the federal government, this is a pretty minor, modest amount of money.
So it’s not a question about spending the dollars. It’s a question, I suppose, either politics, which I think dominates, when you have the speaker saying that no -- no money, not $1 for wall, and you have the president insisting on a wall, in part because that’s what he campaigned on and was elected on, it becomes politics.
But it’s not a financial, it’s not a budgetary issue. It’s a political issue in that sense. And then we all agree that we ought to spend the money wisely. And, again, I don’t see how one can say that a wall is immoral. We have supported barriers, borders, border security in a physical structure way for a long time.
Presidents in the past have built structures along the -- along the border. So we need to set aside kind of the political rhetoric and resolve our differences.
Your question is, will that happen? I think the people who are on the conference committee, the Republican and Democrat members from both the House and Senate...
BARTIROMO: Right.
MORAN: ... they could reach an agreement, if they don’t get undercut by their leaders.
And so I think that could happen. My request of them, could they please do it well in advance of February the 15th, when the funding for general government goes away?
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MORAN: And a shutdown is not a -- is not a desired outcome.
BARTIROMO: Senator, real quick on the money that he’s using to -- he said that he has started to build the wall already. Where’s that money coming from?
MORAN: Well, within the...
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: He said he’s hoping that 115 miles of wall will be built within the near future.
MORAN: I mean, Congress has approved money for border security, including physical structures, for a long time.
And so the president, within the Department of Homeland Security, has those resources. The question, I think, again, is, in part, can we extend those barriers where it’s appropriate? And do they need to be additional places?
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MORAN: Instead, this became a wall or nothing, and it became a no wall.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MORAN: And those two things -- negotiations don’t work whenever you just repeat your position.
BARTIROMO: Yes, I will tell you...
MORAN: ... unless something’s happening behind the scenes. And I hope that’s the case.
BARTIROMO: The American people do not want this playing with politics to continue.
Stay with us, Senator. I have got one question for you on China.
MORAN: OK.
BARTIROMO: And then we’re going to talk with the man who’s been called the oracle of A.I.
Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
I am back with Kansas Republican Senator Jerry Moran.
And, Senator, I want to get your take on this upcoming China-U.S. deal. There’s a March 1 deadline.
You shared a picture with us of this pile of grain that your constituents, farmers, in Kansas are saying that the tariffs on China are a major issue because they can’t sell their grain, and they need to sell more grain.
Are you saying you want the president to do a deal, with China buying more grain and soybeans and other things from the United States, even if there’s no agreement on the theft of intellectual property?
MORAN: No, I don’t think I would say that.
First, I would start with the premise that China misbehaves in a terribly dramatic way that’s damaging to the United States and the rest of the world. They do not play by the rules. They enforce technology transfer, steal our intellectual property.
This is something that the president is right to take on. China is among our greatest competitors...
BARTIROMO: OK. So, you wouldn’t be...
MORAN: ... and, in some instances, our adversary.
BARTIROMO: You wouldn’t accept a deal that only includes more stuff being bought by China, then?
MORAN: I think that would be a mistake, in the sense that we would have gone through a lot of pain, and not really resolved the overall issue.
But I do make the case to the president and his administration, Secretary Perdue, Secretary Ross, Ambassador Lighthizer, with that photo.
What that photo shows is grain piled to the ground. What we normally store grain in is an elevator. It doesn’t -- it isn’t piled on the ground in Kansas.
BARTIROMO: Right.
MORAN: But because the supplies are so great, there’s no place to store grain. We need those markets.
BARTIROMO: Understood.
MORAN: Kansas is an export state.
And so -- but we need to have the victory. But the issue needs to be more than just tariff -- retaliatory tariff -- retaliatory tariff. We need to get this resolved if there’s going to be farm income and a future for farmers in my state and across ag country and in the country.
BARTIROMO: All right, we’re going to talk more about this.
Thank you so much, Senator. It is good to see you.
That deadline is upon us on March 1.
We are going to take a short break.
When we come back, I will be speaking with the man who is called the oracle of A.I. He’s out with a book: "A.I. Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order."
We will talk about that, what jobs will be lost as a result of A.I.
Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
President Trump says negotiators have made tremendous progress on the issues of I.P. theft and technology transfers.
According to my next guest, China is poised to surpass the United States on the technology front, in particular, artificial intelligence.
He’s the author of the book "A.I. Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order."
Let’s bring in Kai-Fu Lee. He is chairman and CEO of Sinovation Ventures and president of Sinovation Ventures Artificial Intelligence Institute. He’s also a former president of Google China.
It’s good to have you on the program, Dr. Lee.
KAI-FU LEE, CHAIRMAN, SINOVATION VENTURES: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us.
So, some people feel like it doesn’t matter if China stops stealing I.P. tomorrow. They’re still ahead of the United States when it comes to A.I.
Can you assess the situation for us in terms of what sophistication China has in this regard?
LEE: Yes, I think the I.P. issue is different field by field.
But in the area that we invest in, which is mobile Internet and A.I., there hasn’t been any I.P. theft. It’s really how fast you run and how fast you make the technology forward.
Researchers publish their papers. And this is open domain, open source. Chinese and American companies use it. So, in the mobile and A.I. area, China -- Chinese companies have been running faster.
So it’s kind of catching up in terms of creating businesses and value in speech recognition, computer vision, autonomous vehicles and drones and things like that. So, China is not -- not dependent on American I.P. in this particular area.
I wouldn’t say -- generalize this to all technology areas.
BARTIROMO: What areas is China using A.I. for specifically?
LEE: Well, China has the leading company in speech recognition machine translation that will instantaneously translate even better than American products.
Chinese drone is exported throughout the world. It’s the number one company’s. It’s called DJI. And the Chinese computer vision that’s used in all kinds of applications, including facial recognition, autonomous doors, China is leading all of these areas.
BARTIROMO: Very fascinating.
Do you worry that there is sort of a score on people in China, where the data that China has collected is so significant, that you can actually have a score at the end of the day where you won’t be able to get a mortgage, you won’t be able to get on the train?
Or is that just the culture of China?
LEE: Well, I think the idea of using credit score is -- exists in a lot of countries, right? In the U.S., there are scores that are run by the equivalent of Equifax.
It’s just that, I think, in China, it’s perhaps more ambitious. I think, at this point, it’s not different from an Equifax. But I think, in the future, it may go further. But it also -- it’s also culturally dependent, so we have yet to see exactly how it would be fully rolled out.
BARTIROMO: Tell me about A.I. and how it will change the way we work and how we live.
There are certain industries that you believe the jobs will go away, but then there are other jobs that will be created, right?
LEE: Yes, a lot of jobs are going to change. Almost all the jobs will change.
A.I. is not human intelligence. It’s not magic. It’s just a tool that can, in one domain, take a lot of data and make very smart decisions better than people. So the more the routine job, the more A.I. will take over.
So, routine white-collar jobs, like customer service, telemarketing and loan officers and tellers and jobs like that will be the first to be challenged, then repetitive blue-collar jobs, like dishwasher, assembly line workers. And, a little bit later, drivers also will be challenged.
So, altogether, it’s going to be a large number of jobs that will be displaceable by A.I. in the next 15 years.
BARTIROMO: What about doctors?
LEE: Doctors will take much longer. I think that the practice is harder, but the actual diagnosis is very, very suitable for A.I., because you’re taking so much data and trying to make personalized decisions.
So I would say it might take 20 or 30 years, but doctors’ analytical part will be done by A.I., but the doctor will continue to be the communication, comforter.
BARTIROMO: Like the caregiver.
LEE: Caregiver, and give confidence to the patient.
BARTIROMO: Dr. Lee, let’s continue this conversation on Fox Nation.
Have a great Sunday.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox