Survivor remembers the 'Miracle on the Hudson' 10 years later

close

Video

Survivor remembers the 'Miracle on the Hudson' 10 years later

Clay Presley remembers the infamous landing of flight 1549 on its tenth anniversary.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Maybe you'll get your package. Maybe we'll get you too. I didn't get a care package, I sat through the whole thing. Thank you, Bret.

All right. So, today the president invited Democrats to come over for lunch, trying to get to an end of the shutdown. But they stood him up lunch alone at the White House today for the president.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is “The Story.” Instead, freshman Democrats did march through the halls of the U.S. Capitol, ultimately converging with a singular message on where they stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOE NEGUSE, D-COLO.: This president has taken our government hostage.

REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: This president has an opportunity to not create a crisis, and to not hold the American people and federal employees' hostage.

REP. TOM MALINOWSKI, D-N.J.: I think we know this is not about border security. This is about whether it is right or wrong to hold the American people hostage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Three guesses what the talking points were for today. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, says that she was quick to fire back. But she was quick to fire back, actually. She outlined the plan that the president had hoped to present, and it includes this.

Additional technology at ports of entry. Asylum for minors in their home countries in Central America. And physical steel barriers between the ports of entry.

Democrats though are dug in on their opposition to the wall. Freshman Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill, says that a border wall is off the table. She joins me now. Congresswoman, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you very much for coming back on "THE STORY".

REP. KATIE HILL, D-CALIF.: Hi. Thank you so much for having me.

MACCALLUM: So, just a couple days ago, you said there are gaps we need to find ways of filling them. Let's watch that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Across the border in many different places. But there are gaps and we need to find ways of filling those gaps repairing the fencing. So, there is -- I think that there -- for many of us, there's not really doubt that some kind of physical barrier is necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, why this change of heart?

HILL: Oh, there's no change. I stand by that completely. My point and that of my colleagues is that there is not going to be a 2,000-mile wall. That's just -- and, you know --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Hasn't the president already said that? He said there's places where you can't put a wall. That technology is what will work. There's other places where you can just prepare what's there, and that sounds to be like what you're saying.

HILL: That's great. And so, I think that we are in many cases on the same page. There is such a hang-up on the semantics of this and it's really frustrating for so many of us here. When we really do agree on the vast majority of issues. I think --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, why not go to the lunch? Why not sit down and try to get somewhere with that if there's -- it's obvious as you just said that there are a lot of points of agreement? So, why not start there?

HILL: Because we won't -- we won't talk about any of these things until he agrees to open the government.

MACCALLUM: Why?

HILL: So, the thing that we passed on today -- the measure that we passed today was to give us two weeks. So, open it now, get people their paychecks. Make sure that our planes are flying safely. Make sure that our Border Patrol agents are getting paid. And that we are -- you know, we're paying our coast guard, and that our veterans are not to work anymore.

And then, we will use those two weeks to come to a real agreement that's sustainable, not just rushed through. And we're ready to talk that's why we watch over damage --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: All right. So, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. So, if you -- if you went to the lunch and said that, right? So we're going take two weeks, we're going to agree on what we agree on the border. If we don't agree on that by the end of the two weeks, we're going to be at another impasse, we'll have to shut the government down again. Is that -- is that viable, would you do that?

HILL: Yes. I think that's -- I think that is -- I mean, I certainly I don't ever want to shut down the government again. To me, that's something that I think should be (INAUDIBLE) for all of us.

MACCALLUM: Yes, but you understand why there needs to be a commitment that both sides are going to get something, right?

HILL: I agree. I agree. And I think that's the definition of compromise. It's a really hard thing for us to kind of swallow. And you know, many of us met today.

MACCALLUM: Why would it be a hard thing to swallow when it sounds like you want the same thing that he wants?

HILL: It's not a hard thing for me personally to swallow. I think it's a hard thing for many people who are dug in on either side to swallow.

MACCALLUM: And why do you think that -- why do you that is?

HILL: I think that the notion of compromise is one that people like the idea of it, but when it comes to sort of giving on their side, it's a lot tougher, right? You know, you say, yes, everyone should compromise. But you think that the other side should.

So, you know, we're -- many of us as freshmen, we were talking about it today. And we're like -- look, we are going to have to come to some kind of a compromise. And you know we were having a discussion around it, and some people say like a barriers, a non-starter or others of us are saying, we are going to have to have some kind of a barrier.

And so, I think, you know, that is where the negotiations going to take place, and we're going to have to have that talk within the caucus and outside of it. But, yes, that's why we will have (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, if a barriers are non-starter, they're going to have to go down there and remove everything that's there if all of that is immoral.

Hill: Right. Right.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this, why the blaming of Mitch McConnell today? Why has he been the person who has the ire of Democrats on the Hill for being the blockade?

HILL: So, we have sent over all of these different measures. So far, we've taken I think, five or six different votes that have given different options that would reopen the government even reopen different parts of the government so that we can negotiate on others.

Today was one that would have -- would have again, given us two weeks to negotiate. Worsen we're going to be sending more this week. And he is not allowing any of those to even come to the floor for a vote. So, our requests at his office today was let him come to the vote, we want to meet with him. See what it's going to take.

And we're all co-equal branches of government. So, the Senate and the House should be able to have our own negotiations, and it shouldn't all be directed by the president. That's what we're -- we are the ones that are representing the American people, each of us is representing our own districts, our own States. And I think, that the onus is on us to come to the agreement and the president should be able to sign off on it.

MACCALLUM: All right, Katie Hill, thank you very much. Good to have you with us.

HILL: Thank you. Thanks so much.

MACCALLUM: So, here now is Katie Pavlich, news editor for Townhall.com, and a Fox News contributor. Christopher Hahn, a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, and a syndicated radio talk show host. Good to have both of you with us.

Chris, I think we have a deal. I think we just worked something out here. I mean, what -- it's very hard to figure out what the issue is. They -- Democrats say they want a secure border.

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And that they're willing to fix what's there and expand it with technology and et cetera.

HAHN: I think they do. I just think that they don't want to negotiate against themselves, right? The president had agreed in December to keep the government open through February and negotiate a border wall, then, he got some conservative radio host yelling at him, and he decided, now, I'm going to shut the government down.

So, Democrats are saying, open the government and we'll decide what border security (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, but that's not a negotiating point. Everybody knows that.

HAHN: Well, absolutely is.

MACCALLUM: Katie, what will happen if they do that, do you think?

KATIE PAVLICH, CONTRIBUTOR: Well that's not what Democrats are doing. Nancy Pelosi, the last time she was at the White House, President Trump put on the table. OK, if I open the government in 30 days, can we, at least, have some kind of discussion about a barrier? And she said, no. So, she -- you know, he's not going to open up the government and bad faith knowing that she's going to reject that negotiating piece.

The White House, while Democrats were in Puerto Rico or parading through the halls of Congress today in protest, while they are doing that, the White House is putting real solutions on the table. And this whole thing has gotten bogged down in the barrier, in the wall, and semantics.

But the White House has not only put a barrier on the table. They've talked about $4 billion with the -- and new beds, 52,000 new beds for ICE detention centers because these caravans continue to (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: He, he -- but he --

MACCALLUM: Hold on because I just want to -- I want to play this from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I'm just to interject this into the conversation. Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, D-FLA.: We don't have a border crisis. We don't have terrorists screaming across the border like the president is suggesting. The wall is not only immoral, it's ineffective. I mean, it's ridiculous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is ever reached a point where Democrats just say we have to -- we have to pay for the wall or never what it happens?

SCHULTZ: What needs to have -- this is not an either/or proposition. Either the president caves or, or we cave. The government should be open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Do you agree with that?

HAHN: I think the government should be open. I know -- I don't like using -- I don't like using immoral, but there is no border crisis. We don't have terrorists' formation across the border.

MACCALLUM: What would you call it then? What is it then? Thousands of people.

HAHN: I think it actually is down from where it was at its top. So, calling it a crisis right now is kind of extreme. I think what we have to do is everybody needs to calm down. We need to open the government. For two or three weeks, negotiate and if the president doesn't get a good deal, and the Democrats don't get the new good deal in two weeks, they could go back if (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You know as well as I do. If that that's the deal that is made, he will never get what both sides say they want.

HAHN: Nobody wants a wall. Nobody wants a wall. Not even a public -- not (INAUDIBLE) Republicans don't want a wall.

PAVLICH: That's not true.

MACCALLUM: Why -- Chris, Chris, Chris, why are you -- why is there so -- you know, you know, I totally get. I covered the whole campaign. We asked the president, do you really mean a wall? "Yes," he said up and down.

HAHN: Right.

MACCALLUM: Right. Yes, but we all know that's not where he is now, right?

HAHN: Right.

MACCALLUM: So, isn't that a way to compromise, and you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't say, all right let's reopen the government if the shoe is on the other foot, and we'll talk about what you really want later. That's a terrible negotiation.

HAHN: I would you say we made a deal in December. I'm not going back on the deal we made in December. Go back to the deal we made in December, and then, we'll talk. Well, I think he did in December -- what do think in December by turning it around and shutting the government down was despicable.

(CROSSTALK)

PAVLICH: The deal in December was no funding for any kind of barrier at all.

HAHN: In the art of the deal --

MACCALLUM: So, it's punishment? Is this about punishment?

HAHN: In the art -- in his own book, he said don't negotiate against yourself. So, why would the Democrats not listen to the president's own advice? Why would they say, "Oh, yes, you know what, you shut us down, then we're going to give you more than what you want? No, Mr. President, open the government, sit down with them for three weeks. I'll be on this channel saying, negotiate when that -- when that's open.

MACCALLUM: Katie.

PAVLICH: You're negotiating against Border Patrol agents, and ICE agents on the ground who have said at every single turn, we need more border security, we need new fencing. Is fencing or a barrier or a wall, whatever you want to call it the only solution to this problem? Absolutely not.

HAHN: Right.

PAVLICH: But when you continue to see thousands of people coming up and these caravans, and the intelligence from DHS saying that they are very violent.

HAHN: They are going to ports of entry.

PAVLICH: And Democrats, Democrats continue, and jumping the wall and coming in, and MS-13 members coming in and committing crimes in this country against innocent Americans, that --

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: There is no -- there is no crisis, there's no call for emergency. So, let me --

PAVLICH: If that's not a crisis, and that's on you. But I would tell you that a families who have been affected by this, and families that sort of killed as a result of these policies, that is a crisis.

HAHN: Let me explain emergency. So, if you -- if you fall and break your leg, it's an emergency. If you have to think about going to the emergency room, it's not an emergency. So, we don't have an emergency, we don't have a crisis.

PAVLICH: What's your solution to caravans?

HAHN: We have good people at the border who can handle that.

PAVLICH: What are your solution to caravans?

MACCALLUM: You got (INAUDIBLE) allow or 2,000 more people are living on to buses. I mean, it's pretty difficult to understand the argument that there is not an issue, that there's not something that needs to be fit.

HAHN: I agree.

MACCALLUM: You guys so hung up on the word is that "Oh it's not a crisis." Well, is that really where you want to hang your hat on?

HAHN: We need -- look, I want to go --

PAVLICH: What is it? What is it then?

HAHN: I want to go to 2013 (INAUDIBLE) compromise.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You want to tell that to people who has loved ones had been killed by illegal immigrants in this country?

HAHN: Which gave 25 -- I want to go to the 2013 compromise which had comprehensive immigration reform for 25 billion supporters adjourn.

MACCALLUM: Chris, Chris, Chris, do you want to tell someone whose child has been killed by an illegal immigrant that there is no crisis, there's no emergency, sir. There's nothing to be worried.

HAHN: Do you want to tell the thousands of Americans killed with gun violence that there is no crisis, that we the Second Amendment that protects everything? You know --

MACCALLUM: That's a (INAUDIBLE) discussion, I'm happy to have that discussion with you. But you don't answer my question.

HAHN: I don't -- I don't want to have anecdotal -- I don't want to have anecdotal evidence decide policy.

MACCALLUM: Can you answer my question? Answer my question.

HAHN: Look, it's obviously a crisis to down.

MACCALLUM: Are you going to tell that person, it's not an emergency or a crisis.

HAHN: It's a crisis. It is -- it is a horrible tragedy that happened to them. But that is not a national crisis for me.

PAVLICH: And it's preventable. It is preventable.

HAHN: Somebody has got to get a car accident right outside this building right now. It's not a national crisis, it's still a tragedy.

PAVLICH: Yes, they might going to get parts with an illegal alien.

MACCALLUM: If the person that hits them is an illegal -- who wasn't supposed to be here in the first place and is not here legally, it adds so much salt to the wound, when you look at yourself and you say, why is my country allowing this?

HAHN: Yes. It's a horrible personal tragedy.

PAVLICH: What is your solution to that?

HAHN: But it is not a national crisis.

MACCALLUM: All right. Then, you will. I don't know. I mean, see if that works.

HAHN: It's the truth.

PAVLICH: You have no answer to what the caravan is or how to stop it.

HAHN: Look, they're been caravans coming here since the 90s, they will continue to come here.

MACCALLUM: So, just -- let's open the door and let everyone in.

HAHN: They go to the ports and -- I have a solution, President Obama had an Executive Order which I just heard you say that the press secretary suggested reinstating. Where people could apply for asylum in their home country.

PAVLICH: They have already done that now, they've already done it.

MACCALLUM: They can do that now.

HAHN: This president, President Trump withdrew that order on his first day on day one.

PAVLICH: They can do it in Mexico, they're lying about why they're coming here, the asylum claims are bogus, and people are coming.

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: Well, let's encourage them to take (INAUDIBLE). Let's encourage them to keep --

MACCALLUM: All right. I got to go. We're way over time. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Katie. Good to see you, guys.

PAVLICH: Thanks, Martha.

HAHN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Well see you next time. All right. So, will President Trump's attorney general nominee seek to rein in the FBI? Missouri Senator Josh Hawley ask William Barr that question today. What kind of DOJ leader would he be? Senator Hawley joins me next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, NOMINEE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL: As Attorney General, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. This is how it should be, this is how it must be, and if you confirm me, this is how it will be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: William Barr on deck to be the United States Attorney General for the second time. First time was under Bush 41. He stayed in his case today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His hearing comes just days after a stunning piece in The New York Times that said that the FBI launched an investigation because they feared that Mr. Trump was a Russian agent.

The Times admitted that they had no evidence to publicly back that up. Still, it has some wondering if the FBI at that time was overreaching in its role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY, R-MO.: In your experience with the FBI, is it strange to have a counterintelligence investigation begun because members of that Bureau disagree with the foreign policy stances of a candidate for president or a president of the United States?

BARR: Yes.

HAWLEY: Would it concerned you as Attorney General if FBI agents were making decisions about when and how to launch an investigation of an elected official if it was in order to avoid being supervised or directed by their agency leadership?

BARR: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Joining me now exclusively is the Senator that you just heard from, brand-new senator from Missouri Josh Hawley, the youngest member of the United States Senate and today was his first day on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Congratulations on your new post, Senator, and welcome to THE STORY. It's good to have you here tonight. Do you want to elaborate a little bit on what you were drilling down on there?

HAWLEY: Well, listen. I mean, the report about that the New York Times ran over the weekend is very disturbing and to have the FBI launching a counterintelligence investigation usually reserved for suspected spies by the way, because they disagree with the President's foreign policy views. I mean, this is what the Times reported that the FBI was concerned about -- or some agents were concerned about the President's statements on Russia, on Ukraine, on other matters, I mean foreign policy matters. This is -- this is unprecedented.

It's also potentially unconstitutional because the Constitution gives the President foreign policy authority. The Constitution says the President is the one who determines national security interests in the foreign policy context. So we need to figure out what's going on here.

MACCALLUM: Well, they -- I mean, they -- these agents clearly thought that the President was in cahoots with the Russian government more than just disagreeing with perhaps what he might do as President. I want to play this exchange between chairman of the Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham and Mr. Barr today. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: This is a message August 8th, 2016, a text message. Trump is not ever going to become president, right? Strzok responded no, no, he's not. We'll stop him. March 4th, 2016. Page to Strzok. God, Trump is a loathsome human being. October the 20th, 2016. Trump is an effing idiot as unable to provide a coherent answer. How do these statements sit with you?

BARR: I was shocked when I saw them.

GRAHAM: OK, please get to the bottom of it. I promise you we will protect the investigations but we're lying upon you to clean this place up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: He said we're relying on you to clean this place up. Was there any indication in the testimony today that William Barr would be proactive about that?

HOWLEY: Well, he responded to that line of questioning from Senator Graham by saying that he was very concerned. He told me the same thing. He was very concerned by the FBI's behavior here and that he was going to get to the bottom of it and he was going to figure out what in the world is going on. Because listen, the other the other part of The Times report is you have agents who are trying to launch an investigation while they have a friendly supervisor Andy McCabe who since been booted out of the department.

So this is very unusual behavior. Again it raises serious constitutional concerns and I hope that the new Attorney General will get to the bottom of it and I for one intend to hold him accountable.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You mentioned that in your second question and it was the whole issue of Strzok and Page saying that they had to really get moving on the case that they were working on while Andy is acting, meaning Andy McCabe is the acting attorney general -- I mean the acting FBI director at that point which clearly raises a lot of questions. Let me get your thoughts on this. This is Mr. Barr on the subject of Vladimir Putin. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARR: I think the Russians are a potent rival of our country and his foreign policy objectives are usually at directly contrary to our goals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What you think of that answer? He also pointed out China as the country that he thought was more concerning. Is that relevant to the job that he will be doing? He was asked about it obviously.

HAWLEY: Yes, he was asked about it in the counterintelligence context and clearly China and Russia are two countries that we need to be very concerned with and these countries are attempting to interfere with the United States to counter us to exert control in many ways over our economy, over our elections. We know that. So we've got to be vigilant and standing up to them and I think that this Attorney General gets that. He understands the role of his department. He understands the role of the FBI and he wants to get back to actually following the rule of law at the Justice Department, the FBI, and that is important.

MACCALLUM: Senator, before I let you go, I would ask you one question about the two rulings by federal judges because you were part of the case that was brought by 20-some states against ObamaCare, and now two federal judges have ruled that there should be no exemption for companies who do not want to provide because of their religious beliefs, birth control under their health plans. What's your reaction to those two decisions.

HAWLEY: Well, I think that these are wrong decisions. I mean, I think that the rule that was put forward by the administration that would allow religious and moral exemptions for folks from the contraceptive mandate, let's not forget, I mean, I was one of the attorneys who went to the Supreme Court to challenge the contraceptive mandate is unconstitutional or at least as against statutory law and the court ruled in favor in the Hobby Lobby case.

So now the -- this administration is trying to comply with that and you've got these two courts, Liberal courts who have thrown out the religious and world exemptions. What's worse, Martha, is they've issued nationwide injunctions. They purported to tell the whole country of what they can and cannot do. And I raised this with attorney general Barr. I think it's a big problem.

MACCALLUM: Senator Josh Hawley, thank you very much. Good to have you with us tonight. I look forward to talking with you more.

HAWLEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So both sides of the aisle, legislators have branded him a racist and a bigot. Embattled GOP Congressman Steve King took to the floor to defend himself and Brit Hume has some interesting thoughts on this story. He joins me next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE KING, R-IA.: I think I know all of you well. I thought you all knew me well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let's vote for this resolution. I'm putting up a yes on the board here because what you say here is right and it's true and it's just.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Iowa Congressman Steve King today voting yes along with almost every other House member to condemn his own remarks in The New York Times last week when he told the paper, "White Nationalist, White Supremacist, Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?" The remarks set a firestorm. King offered this explanation on the floor of the House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: I understand how you interpreted my words when you read them this way. There is no tape for this interview that I did. I want to read it to the way I believe I said it and that's this. White Nationalist, White Supremacist, Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: In moments Brit Hume will weigh in on all of this but first, Trace Gallagher has the back story tonight. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Martha, the only member of Congress who voted no on the resolution of disapproval against Steve King is Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush supported the stiffer penalty of censure. South Carolina Democrat James Clyburn said after the vote that he would like to see King expelled from Congress and the number three House Republican Liz Cheney also thinks King should go. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY, R-WYO.: This language questioning whether or not the notion of white supremacy is offensive is absolutely abhorrent. It's racist. We do not support it or agree with it and as I said, I think he should find another line of work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Those sentiments were echoed in the upper chamber with freshman Utah Senator Mitt Romney saying King should step aside and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying King's statements are unwelcomed and unworthy of his elected position. Even though Congressman King himself agreed with the resolution of disapproval, he also said this in his defense. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That ideology never shows up in my head. I don't know how good possibly come out of my mouth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: But critics point out that in October Steve King endorsed white nationalist candidate Faith Goldy for mayor of Toronto. Goldy reportedly promoted books espousing anti-Semitic ideas and defended white supremacist slogans.

King also came under fire for giving an interview last year to a right-wing publication in Austria where he said, quoting, "If we don't defend western civilization, then we will become subjugated by the people who are the enemies of faith, the enemies of justice."

And King once compared selecting immigrants to choosing hunting dogs, quoting again, "you want a good bird dog? You want one that's going to be aggressive. Pick the ones that's the friskiest not the one that's over there sleeping in the corner."

Steve King has also been stripped of his committee assignments, which he characterized as an assault on his freedom of speech. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much.

Here now, Brit Hume, Fox News senior political analyst. Brit, good evening to you. What do you think first of all of his speech statement on the floor and his assertion that he was taken out of context, misquoted?

BRIT HUME, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, I can -- I can kind of see his point, but I'm sorry, you know, the juxtaposition of what's wrong with those terms in the phrase white supremacist is just too close for comfort. And I think that he was on the right track when he went along with the resolution today to condemn that.

This whole episode, Martha, is testament to something that I think is very important to understand, which is the great achievement of the Civil Rights movement was not necessarily the passing of the laws as important as they were the Civil Rights law. It was also the great national -- overwhelming national consensus against racism.

So, if you are touched with that label, racist, you are in severe trouble. And what's happened to Steve King is proof of that. It also raises though an interesting question for journalists, how are we to handle comments that some describe as racist or for whichever accuse someone of racism?

An interesting thing happened today at NBC News, just to site one news organization. They sent out a word to their people that that they were not to characterize his statements as racist but only to simply to say these were statements that some are calling racist.

Well, the left-wing Huffington Post got all over them about that. And the next thing you know, NBC News have rescinded that guidance and said you are perfectly free to say that what Steve King said is racist.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, Brit, let me pull up that statement.

HUME: And they wanted to say because he's --

MACCALLUM: Sorry to interrupt. We have that statement --

HUME: Go ahead.

MACCALLUM: -- and I just want to put up on the screen. The original statement was NBC tell staffers not to directly called Steve King's racist remarks racist as you have pointed out. Then they came on and said that "We revise our guidelines on Representative King's comments, it is fair to characterize King's comments as racist and point out that he has a history of racist comments." Brit?

HUME: Martha, he is not going to get any awards for being a civil rights leader. But the New York Times did somewhat the same thing today. They had a big piece that said, you know, his long history of racist comments. I read every one of them. And some of them weren't even about race. Some of them were about Islam. Islam is not a race, it's a faith.

Many of them might be considered insensitive, but they weren't racist. Racism is a very specific thing. It means a belief in the superiority of one race over another. And it is taboo the United States as well as it should be.

But we need to be careful flinging this term around because what's happened to this tragically is that this great triumph for the Civil Rights movement making racism indefensible and intolerable has been weaponized and it is -- and the term now, the adjective racist is hurled around with abandon.

It is a kind of thing that we in the news media need to stay out of in the middle of. We shouldn't be getting involved in this. We shouldn't be throwing the word racist around with abandon. We should be very careful on how we use it.

What NBC said to do in the first place which was to leave it to others to characterize as racist was the right call.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUME: The second call of my opinion was the wrong call. And that New York Times piece was completely bogus. I mean, those comments -- look, I don't agree with them and I'm no fan of Steve King. But I'm sorry, they did not amount to racism.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, it's interesting you go through these -- and as you said there are two sides to the story. One is, as you say, you are no fan of Steve King. I mean, this is been going on for a long time. You know, Kevin McCarthy said he just heard this comment for the first time. He has a history of same things that are controversial.

And as journalist covering these stories, that is what you can say. And you can say that, you know, some of these comments have been viewed as racist and some -- and lay it out there and let people look at what he said and decide what they think.

But when a newspaper, as the New York Times did, starts saying in the headline -- put up the New York Times headlines, guys so that everybody can see this at home -- Steve King's racist remarks and divisive actions a timeline --

HUME: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- and they took everyone through it.

HUME: And the thing, Martha, you put your finger right on this. The best thing to do is simply to quote what he said accurately --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUME: -- and let the people of the United States who have no -- who have no taste for racism make up their own mind as to whether it was racist or not. That's the rule now. If an opinion commentator comes along, like even myself and wants to say that, that's his or her business.

But to distract your journalist to fling around for a term like that with abandon like that, I think it's absolutely one of the things that's wrong with the news media today and why we -- why we as an institution stand in such low esteem. People think we are biased and this suggests that indeed we are.

MACCALLUM: It's interesting that only Bobby Rush -- Congressman Bobby Rush was wanted the censure. He wanted the full-throated censure, which is the toughest punishment that can be inflicted on a member of Congress by other members of Congress. He was the only one.

HUME: Well, it's a -- there are tougher things. You can expel a member. But you know, he wanted a censure. But I mean, I think -- you know, I think that he certainly had a tough day today, Steve King. And I think, you know, he is trying to crawl back into good graces. But remember, he's been stripped of all his committee assignments. So, he remains, you know -- if Congress committee is Congress at work. And if you're not on any of the committees there's not a lot you can do except vote on the floor and that's not --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. Especially when you're from Iowa and they took you off the agricultural committee.

HUME: Exactly right.

MACCALLUM: It's going to be tough for him and that's the way the country works.

HUME: It is.

MACCALLUM: He is going to have to go through an election, as he said, I'll be here for two more years and then we'll see what happens after that. There's already a pretty active race against him. And the Des Moines Register has now called for him to step down as well. So, the politics will step in and we'll see whether or not he survives in his own state.

HUME: Yes. Let the people decide.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. Brit, thank you so much. Great to see you tonight, sir.

HUME: You bet.

MACCALLUM: So, still ahead, 10 years after the miracle on the Hudson -- it is hard for me to believe that this was 10 years ago because I remember like it was yesterday, not too far from here on the Hudson River -- we are going to get an update from one of the passengers and how life changing this event was.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Cactus 1549, Hit birds. We've lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back towards La Guardia. We're unable. We may end up in Hudson.

(END VOICE CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So here's part of is significant about the voting down of Brexit today in the U.K. You know, in normal political times, Theresa May would be clearing out of 10 Downing right now and chequers (ph) and accepting defeat. But these are not normal times necessarily that we are seeing right now. She is a tenacious politician, we know that.

She was originally against the idea of Brexit, answered a sort of Trump- like call of an England first future for her country, the sentiment that drove that entire movement. And now she has -- you know, she came around to sort of backing the whole thing. Now, she is asking how parliament can rob the people of what they voted and asked parliament to do?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: It is clear that the house does not support this deal. But tonight's vote tells us nothing about what it does support. Nothing about how -- nothing about how or even if it intends to honor the decision the British people took in a referendum parliament decided to hold.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: All right. So back up and turn and look at the big picture here a little bit. Keep in mind that the sentiment in different forms is popping up in all different places in Europe. The woman who is likely to take over for Angela Merkel, at least as the leader of her party the Christian Democrats, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who is going to be -- basically known as AKK, is talking a lot tougher on immigration than Merkel ever did.

And then in France you have the yellow vests who continue to protest week after week, every Saturday. They are coming out against the Macron government, against higher taxes. Some of their supporters, some of them, have backed a Frexit movement to remove France from the E.U., although the protests really are all over in the map. They are clearly unhappy with the status quo in France.

So, what is happening out there and how does it echo what we see here at home in terms of sentiment?

Joining me now is Dalibor Rohac. He is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute where he studies European political and economic trends. Let me start there. You know, so Brexit got voted down. You know, two years after the people of the U.K. voted for it. They said we want to pull out of the E.U. and we want more control over our own affairs.

DALIBOR ROHAC, SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Well, the trouble with populist movement, such as the yellow vest or the Brexit movement or even some of the momentum behind Donald Trump, is that although these movements and populist leaders often identify grievances that are real and genuine, they very rarely are unable to identify viable solutions.

With Brexit people were told their vision of a post-E.U. future for the U.K. that was not realistic. And that's the main reason why Brexit today is a mess. It's not because Theresa May is incompetent, she isn't. It's not because Brussels is out there to -- seeking to punish the U.K. they have, you know, ton of other things to attend to other than -- other than Brexit. It's really because there are real trade-offs --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: -- the sentiment in Europe and in U.K. they don't like being part of the E.U. I mean -- and why can that sentiment not translate into something that is workable and allows them to separate if that's what they want?

ROHAC: Of course. There are many ways in which the U.K. could disentangle itself from the E.U. The problem is that those involved tradeoffs and costs. The U.K. could try to be a part of the single market like Norway and Iceland that it would mean becoming a rule taker in Europe. It can try to, you know, opt for a hard Brexit, essentially wiping out the U.K.'s industry and agriculture and the service sector and really bring real damage to its relations with its continental neighbors.

So, there are really no free launches in this. And even if you think that the U.K. should not be part of the European union, the idea that we should all go for the hardest of all possible options, which is what some conservatives are now suggesting seems to be deeply irresponsible and completely arsonist approach to policymaking.

MACCALLUM: Well, we'll see where they end up, either with somebody who is harder Brexit than she is or perhaps down the line, Jeremy Corbyn or somebody who is much further left on all of this. So, we'll see. Dalibor, thank you very much.

ROHAC: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: Good to have you with us. So, coming up next, a live update from Honduras where another caravan of roughly 2,000 migrants is starting to make their way towards the United States.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So tonight, there are reports that there is another caravan that is on the move. This one has about 2,000 migrants embarking on a long journey from Honduras to the United States.

Correspondent Steve Harrigan is live on the ground there with the latest on what's going on. Hi, Steve. Good evening.

STEVE HARRIGAN, CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good evening. We'll give you a look at some of the conditions here for the Central American migrants on the trail. These people, most of them have gone about 150 miles today. This is day one for them of what could be a 3,000-mile trip to the U.S. border, most of them saying they want to work and get inside the U.S.

This is a church here. They have given the migrants food, some tortillas, some chicken and (inaudible) with Guatemala. And already some of the migrants have gone through into Guatemala, making that crossing pretty easily. It's been very tough conditions we've seen on these mountainous roads throughout the day. This is after all the second major convoy, the last one three months ago had 7,000 people. This one could gain many more than that.

Already on day one, we've really seen the numbers doubled from 1,000 to 2,000 and they are expected to pick up a lot more people as they move through Guatemala and into Mexico. The real question is, how hospitable is Mexico going to be towards another round of migrants? Already the president is promising to treat them humanely, but there are concerns on the ground.

Tijuana, for example, has just closed a major shelter that housed several thousand migrants in the first convoy, just when another one is coming. And there are also reports a third convoy is building. So, this is something people seem to be really getting into, they think it's successful and they are continuing to come in large numbers towards the U.S. border. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Steve, a quick question for you. What's the composition of the people that you are seeing? Are they mostly man, are they families? What are you seeing?

HARRIGAN: I'd say about 80 percent are young men, but a lot of mothers with small children too. When you see, you know, mothers holding toddlers walking on a mountain road, that's even tough for a bus to get up, it is a tough road to go. And many of them, you know, less than $50 in their pockets when we ask them how much they have for a 3,000-mile trip. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Unbelievable. Steve, thank you very much. Steve Harrigan reporting tonight on the caravan in Honduras.

And it was exactly 10 years ago that Captain Sully Sullenberger, whose name became known to all of us, successfully landed a plane with 155 people on it on the Hudson River. We are going to talk to one of the passengers on that plane and on that flight, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're getting more information about an apparent plane down in the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. Passengers are now seen, according to a witness, standing on the wings of a plane that is now floating in the water off New York City in the Hudson River.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: This is so unbelievable when this happened. Ten years ago today, pilot, Sully Sullenberger's, brave and unthinkable decision to land a plane carrying 155 passengers skimming along the water and safely landed on the Hudson River.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Cactus 1549. Hit birds. We've lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back towards LaGuardia. We're unable. We may end up in the Hudson.

(END VOICE CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Can you imagine, every person on that plane survived? That's why they call it the miracle on the Hudson, including my next guest who has since faced his fear of flying by becoming a pilot. Clay Presley joins me. Clay, good evening. Good to have you with us. When you go --

CLAY PRESLEY, SURVIVOR, MIRACLE ON the HUDSON: Good evening, Martha.

MACCALLUM: -- this anniversary obviously it's going to bring that day back to you. What was going through your mind when he told you all to brace for impact we're going to land on the river.

PRESLEY: Well, brace for impact, I mean, when I first heard that I was sitting there trying to figure out what he was actually said. And then once I realized that there was a sudden fear that comes over you. And just overtakes -- overtakes your brain. You are just so scared at that point in time.

MACCALLUM: And did you talk or are you the kind of scared person like I would be who would probably say nothing?

PRESLEY: That's exactly what happened. I think once he said brace for impact, the plane was very quiet.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PRESLEY: And we were just watching it as we went down. We were watching the Jersey cliffs and as we were coming towards the river, we were getting ready for the impact.

MACCALLUM: Incredible, what a hero. I mean, and he went back and forth on the plane a couple times while it was on the water making sure everybody was out. How did it impact your life, Clay?

PRESLEY: Well, it impacted -- obviously it had a significant impact. I think over the last 10 years I have learned that life is really short. You live it. You surround yourself with very positive people and you distance yourself from very negative people.

MACCALLUM: Don't waste a moment, right?

PRESLEY: That's right. Don't waste any time.

MACCALLUM: And you became a pilot. That's pretty cool. Do you fly -- where -- do you fly a small plane or --

PRESLEY: Yes, I fly a four-seater plane.

MACCALLUM: Congratulations.

PRESLEY: Single engine.

MACCALLUM: Good way to overcome. It's an incredible, incredible story. You are standing right in front of the plane, that plane, correct?

PRESLEY: That's correct. The plane is such an emotional monument for not only the passengers and the crew but also people that come and visit the Carolina Aviation Museum here in Charlotte.

I mean, there is -- you have to remember that happened at such a terrible time and economic times in the U.S. And it was one of the positive things that happened and it was such a feel-good story that when people come in here, I think they remember that story and there's a true emotional response for almost everyone that comes --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PRESLEY: -- and visit out plane at the museum.

MACCALLUM: I mean, as someone who covered it, none of us ever thought that we were going to be reporting that everyone survived when we saw what had happened and thank God you did. Clay, thank you very much. Great to have you with us tonight.

PRESLEY: All right. Thank you very much for having me.

MACCALLUM: Good story, right? So, we leave you with this really cute quote from Liam, the 8-year-old grandson of attorney general nominee William Barr who got a lot of attention today. He wrote this note during today's confirmation hearing.

"Dear, Grandpa. I love you so much. You are doing great so far. And I'm having so much fun. Love, Liam." Look at the P.S. "I think Russia's people are fine. It's the government is the problem." Liam has figured it all out.

Also, can you get the fact that Chuck Grassley is still on the memo pad at the top of that memo page. So, I guess they have not -- Lindsey Graham has not received his new stationary with his name on it, so we leave you with that for tonight. That is THE STORY on this Tuesday night. We'll see you back here tomorrow night.

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.