Will Congress strike a border security deal that includes funding for the wall?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," January 27, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo.
Joining us straight ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right here, Senator Lamar Alexander, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee that determines how your tax dollars are spent.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}We will discuss the temporary deal ending the government shutdown and whether Congress can negotiate a long-term bill for border security. Will President Trump ultimately have to declare a national emergency?
Plus, the ranking member of the House Intel Committee, Devin Nunes, here on why he's supporting the president's hard-line stance against Chinese trade abuses, how Democrats are plotting a course of oversight for the Trump administration.
Also, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise with us to discuss how Congress can come together to pass border wall funding.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}And I will speak with Utah Democratic Representative Ben McAdams this morning, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, about his support for a border barrier and how he's standing up to congressional leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Also here, Mark Penn, reacting to the charges against former Trump associate Roger Stone.
All that more as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}And we begin this morning with President Trump signing a short-term spending bill to end the partial government shutdown, this after competing measures to reopen the government both fell short in the Senate.
My first guest this morning is one of six GOP senators who voted for the Democratic plan without wall funding.
Joining me right now, in an exclusive interview, is Republican Senator from Tennessee Lamar Alexander. He sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee and serves as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Sir, it's good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for joining us.
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER, R-TENN.: Thanks for inviting me.
BARTIROMO: So why did you vote for this bill that didn't include border security, sir?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}ALEXANDER: I wanted the government to be open.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
ALEXANDER: I mean, I would have voted 10 times to open the government.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}We should never, ever close the government down as a bargaining chip in a budget negotiation, whether it's border security or Planned Parenthood or military funding or anything else.
It ought to be the chemical weapons of real warfare. It ought to be off- limits.
BARTIROMO: Yes, it's a fair point, sir.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}So let's talk about the next three weeks and what it looks like. You have got another now deadline, February 15. Are we going to see money for the border wall?
ALEXANDER: Well, we should.
And here's something that's overlooked. The last four presidents, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Bush, working with Congress, built 654 miles of physical barrier -- that's wall -- along our 2,000-mile southern border. That's before President Trump.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}So, all President...
BARTIROMO: Right. And we're looking -- sir, we're looking right now at a graphic, the wall in Nancy Pelosi's state. This is the wall separating Tijuana from San Diego.
ALEXANDER: Right. Yes.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}BARTIROMO: And this is the wall that has been there and she voted for and knows it's in her own state. And yet she says any more wall is immoral.
ALEXANDER: Yes, that's -- we need to get it out of the speaker's hands and the public debate and into the hands of members of Congress, who have for 20 years known that a comprehensive border security plan includes more personnel, more technology and more physical barrier.
President Trump's asking for about 234 more miles of physical barrier as part of a comprehensive plan that wouldn't build a wall from shining sea to shining sea, as he said. It would simply do what we have been doing for 20 years.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}So I'm optimistic that the committee, which just last summer in the Senate approved another $1.6 billion for 65 miles of physical barrier, will be able to come up with a compromise.
BARTIROMO: Well, you are on the Appropriations Committee, sir. What would be the appropriate number to actually come up with the money for a border wall?
And we know that, on the left, many of your colleagues just want to resist this president. Is that what Nancy Pelosi is doing, given the fact that we know in the past she has voted for border fencing barriers, like the one in her own state that we just looked at?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}ALEXANDER: Well, that's why we need to get it out of this no-wall/wall fight between the speaker and the president, into the hands of members of Congress, who for 20 years have been saying we need more physical barrier, we need more technology, we need more custom agents, we need more border agents.
We can do that, just as we did for President Obama, Clinton, Bush and Bush, and come up with a reasonable number for all of those things as part of comprehensive border security.
Remember, even if all of the physical barrier, wall, that President Trump asked for were approved, we would still have about 1,000 miles of the southern border that wouldn't have any sort of wall on it, and he wouldn't have asked for any sort of wall on it.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}So this is a very reasonable request by the president. He's done what they asked him to do, which is to cooperate in opening the government. It's now time for them to be reasonable and do again what they have done for 20 years working with other presidents.
BARTIROMO: So how can you do that? Can you actually get it out of the speaker's hands and this fight between Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump, get it firmly in Congress' hands and have practical solutions?
Do you think that's possible?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}ALEXANDER: Actually -- actually, that's where it is now. And that's what we suggested three weeks ago.
So we have a -- we have a conference committee. It include senators and House members. They're already structured. They -- they're ready to meet. They're the ones that have in the past approved as recently as last year in the Senate more technology, more personnel, more physical barrier.
And so it'll be their job, then, to recommend to the House and the Senate and the president what a solution is. And they'd be smart not to recommend something the president couldn't sign, because, under the Constitution, if you want a law, the president has to sign it.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}So they will be checking with him and I'm sure checking with the leaders of the Senate and the House along the way. But it won't be this highly publicized stuff, where the president comes out and says wall, and Nancy comes out of her office in five minutes and says no wall.
BARTIROMO: Right.
ALEXANDER: That's not the way you get a result.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}BARTIROMO: That's right.
But you said, let's get it out of that fight and into Congress' hands, so that something can be done about it. Do you feel that you and your colleagues will have the power to do that? Because we know that many of the incoming Democrat freshman congressmen actually are moderate, and they want to get things done.
They signed a letter, sent it to leadership, saying, we don't want all of this bluster about investigations. We want to get things done for the American people.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Will they have the influence? Will you have the influence in order to get this done, get it out of the fighting words, and actually toward border security, including a fencing?
ALEXANDER: Well, we will see.
But we -- most of us learn after we're here a few weeks that it doesn't take much courage or skill to take a position. You can stay home and do that. It does take some courage and some skill to get a result. And that's what the members of this conference committee will be trying to do, to get comprehensive border security on the southern border and, where appropriate, more technology, more personnel, and more physical barrier, meaning wall.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}BARTIROMO: Well, being on the Appropriations Committee, can you share with us the priorities? What would it cost? What is a practical number?
The president is asking for $5.7 billion. The Democrats will push back. What do you think is realistic in terms of the next three weeks of negotiation?
ALEXANDER: Well, I can give you the number that was approved by the Senate last year was $5.7 billion, $1.6 billion for new physical barrier or 65 miles of wall.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Now, the president, in the middle of the year, said, well, we have got a problem on the border that I didn't anticipate. We need another $7 billion. He's asked for $4.1 billion for a physical barrier of that. That's what the Congress will consider. That's what the conference will talk about.
And the Republicans will support what the president asked for. The Democrats will say, well, I'm skeptical of that, but there's some other things I would like to see in immigration policy. You put the two things together and get a result.
That's what we normally do. That's what we did with Presidents Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Bush. That's what we should do with President Trump.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}BARTIROMO: No, you make a lot of good points, sir.
Let me ask you this. Let's say, in the next three weeks, Nancy Pelosi digs in and says absolutely no more than $1 for any wall or fencing. Will the government close down again?
ALEXANDER: The government should never close down.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}BARTIROMO: So, what are you going to do?
ALEXANDER: And I would hope -- I would hope that the speaker -- well, I always vote to open the government, period.
But what I would hope the speaker would do -- she's taken her position. The president's taken his. Now, step back and let the Congress come up with a result and allow it to happen. I mean, if we can't do it on this, we can't do it on anything.
And, typically, we do this. I have worked on a great many issues, like fixing No Child Left Behind, where President Obama said, there are three things I want in the bill, or I won't sign it. So, OK, Mr. President, I read the Constitution. They will be in there, but give me some time to work out a bill that Republicans can support with a lot of things that we like that you probably don't like.
And so we were able to do that. That's what we do. And the speaker should step back. And the president should too, actually. Give us these three weeks to try to get a result. I think we can.
BARTIROMO: Senator, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much.
ALEXANDER: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: We appreciate your time this morning, Senator Lamar Alexander.
As President Trump works to strike a deal with lawmakers on border security by that February 15 deadline, more than two dozen House Democrats say the president now deserves a vote on wall funding. One of them joins us next.
You can follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, on Instagram as well, and @SundayFutures.
Stay with us. We're looking ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now. Big show ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
President Trump doubles down on his demands for a border wall, as he calls on Democrats to restart negotiations on funding the government past February 15.
A new number of House Democrats appear to be supporting the idea of at least a vote on wall funding.
One of them joins me right now, Utah Democratic Congressman Ben McAdams. He's a member of the House Financial Services Committee and the Blue Dog Coalition.
Congressman, it's nice to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for being here.
REP. BEN MCADAMS, D-UT: Thank you, Maria. Good to be with you.
BARTIROMO: So, you were among 30 House Democrats who sent Nancy Pelosi a letter urging her to give Trump a vote on the wall funding.
Tell me what you think would come out of that vote.
MCADAMS: You know, first and foremost, what -- the purpose of that letter was to say that the shutdown is doing no good for anybody. We're harming the U.S. economy. We're risking a recession. We're harming the federal employees who are just working to put food on the table. And let's open the government.
There are processes in the Congress, in our government laid out by the founders to have debates like this. That's what Congress is intended to do. So let's open the government and then let's have this negotiation.
The president has a proposal that should be heard in the Congress. We should debate it. And then we should work to build common ground and try and move forward a solution on border security, on immigration reform. And let's go through the proper channels of the Congress that are built and intended to have this exact conversation.
But let's not do it in the context of a shutdown that harms the American people, that harms our economy...
BARTIROMO: Right.
MCADAMS: ... and risks the pocketbooks of every American.
BARTIROMO: What I'm trying to better understand is really the makeup of the new Congress, because, of course, we know that there's a pocket of Democrats who just want the president out.
And much of it is politics, and they are resisting anything that he would like. We know that Nancy Pelosi and many of her colleagues voted for a wall and voted for wall fencing years ago many times. We know that there's a wall right now, a border wall, in Nancy Pelosi's own state of California separating Tijuana and San Diego.
But because President Trump has the idea, it's resist, resist, resist. So you come from a red state. You beat out your opponent on the Republican side. Do you think there's a movement within your new Congress to actually get things done, putting politics aside, and not necessarily resisting everything the president says because you don't like his personality?
MCADAMS: Absolutely.
There are a lot of -- me and my colleagues who were elected this last year, a lot of us are just pragmatists who just want to get something done.
Before I was elected to Congress, I was a mayor. And mayors just have this attitude of, OK, what can we do to move forward to solve the problem? As a Democrat in a very red state, I never got anything done unless I could reach out and build bridges across the aisle.
So as long as the debate is focused on -- as long as we're defining a win as meaning somebody else loses, we're never going to have consensus. So we have got to find that win-win.
And I don't know at this time what the win looks -- that win-win looks like, but we have to find it. And I know that a lot of my freshman colleagues are moderates who want to find that win-win, that probably we should look at some things to address immigration reform. And dreamers, I think, is something important, permanent protections for dreamers, but also border security.
As a mayor, I saw illegal drugs and the impacts of that in my -- in my city. And I want to do more to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the -- into the country. So I think there's a lot of common ground.
And I think the way to approach this, and the way that I would approach it if I was mayor, is to say, there's a conversation, a debate about wall or no wall. Let's step back from that conversation...
BARTIROMO: Right.
MCADAMS: ... where there's -- it's divisive, and let's talk about what we have in common. Let's find that thread of commonality amongst Republicans and Democrats.
I think the thread of commonality is, we all want to protect the border. We can find common ground on that.
BARTIROMO: So...
MCADAMS: So, in some places, that's going to mean technology, other places, in other ways, immigration reform. And in some places, it may mean a barrier.
BARTIROMO: Right.
MCADAMS: And I think, if we step back and reframe the conversation about protecting the border, and what can we do, and what's the most effective way to do that, instead of debating a wall or no wall, let's debate border security.
And I think there's a lot of common ground.
BARTIROMO: Yes, I think you make a lot of good points, because there are areas of the country where they're wide open, and perhaps maybe you don't need an actual sense or wall there because you can use technology and drones.
They're wide-open areas. And, if illegals come in, you can actually apprehend them easily because it's so wide-open. But then there are other areas, like the wall we have been looking at in Nancy Pelosi's state separating Tijuana from San Diego, where you have a very dense population, three million people on one side of the wall, three -- in Tijuana -- another three million people on the other side of the wall in San Diego.
So what is your thoughts in terms of how much is needed for actual -- a barrier on the southern border? And will you vote yes for wall creation and more wall extension of what we're seeing in this picture?
MCADAMS: So what I have tried to do is not draw any lines in the sand.
I want to vote to have border protection, to have border security, to reduce the flow of drugs and even illegal immigration.
BARTIROMO: But you said part of that may include a barrier.
MCADAMS: Sure. I wouldn't rule out barriers in places where it's appropriate.
I think that's -- I think that's acceptable. But let's have this conversation in the context of committee hearings in the Congress, with a goal of finding common ground.
I also think one of the things we can do to protect the border is to reduce illegal immigration by fixing a broken immigration system. If we can make sure that those good people...
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MCADAMS: ... who are -- who are just looking for a job -- our economy is asking to bring in workers. Let's find a -- let's make it easier for them to immigrate legally, so they're not tempted to cross the border illegally.
BARTIROMO: Sir, do you feel like...
MCADAMS: So, I think part of the -- part of the border -- part of the border protection strategy has to be fixing a broken immigration system, our laws.
BARTIROMO: Do you feel that you have a voice? I mean, I know that you didn't support Nancy Pelosi's bid to become the speaker for a second time.
Do you feel like you're being listened to? Will you have the influence with these practical ideas that you're putting forth?
MCADAMS: I think so.
I mean, we're just up -- getting up and going as a Congress right now. I have been pleasantly surprised that people both on the Republican side and even more progressive on the Democratic side who -- who -- I felt that my voice is welcome.
Let's -- let's hope that, as we go into this negotiation, people can allow all voices to be at the table, some of the pragmatists can -- on both sides of the aisle, again, can really push for common ground and trying to find that solution that will really garner a majority of support in Congress and help us to reopen the border.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MCADAMS: I'm somebody who -- we're going to have disagreements from time to time.
But once one disagreement is behind us, we move to the next issue, and we try and find common ground, and we don't carry baggage forward from debate to debate.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MCADAMS: And that's how I would go into this...
BARTIROMO: Well, you're right.
MCADAMS: ... is saying, look, we have got that behind us. Let's move forward and find common ground.
BARTIROMO: There are also disagreements that are also radical on the economic side of things.
MCADAMS: Yes.
BARTIROMO: You're on the Financial Services Committee.
What are your thoughts on Elizabeth Warren's idea to confiscate income, to put a tax on overall assets and wealth, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's idea of having a 70 percent tax rate for the top earners?
MCADAMS: I think I -- I have jokingly said before, if you -- if people think that there are only two political parties in this country, watch the Financial Services Committee over the next several years.
You're going to see a broad array of people across the political spectrum. You're going to see someone on the more progressive side, like Representative Ocasio-Cortez, myself, who's a moderate, a centrist, that believes in the power of business and markets, properly regulated, of course, to make sure that there are protections for consumers and individuals, that the power of markets can really do a lot of good and has done a lot of good in this country.
BARTIROMO: Yes, but will that force high earners to hide income, where you won't get the revenue anyway? Will it change behavior in terms of philanthropy?
Will it -- what do you think that does to an economy if you see those kinds of tax rates, 70 percent tax on assets and wealth?
(CROSSTALK)
MCADAMS: I'm not convinced -- I'm not convinced that a 70 percent tax rate is the way to go.
Any time you have -- tax policy drives behavior. And so we -- that's not a direction I think we should go in as a country.
BARTIROMO: Right.
MCADAMS: We should look -- what behavior are we trying to drive, and what is good for the American economy and good for the American people?
BARTIROMO: Congressman, you make a lot of good points. We so appreciate your time this morning. Thank you, sir.
MCADAMS: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Congressman Ben McAdams there.
President Trump's longtime political confidant Roger Stone arrested, indicted after a pre-dawn FBI raid in South Florida with cameras outside.
In the wake of the special counsel's decision to bust another Trump campaign adviser, there are questions regarding whether there is a double standard when it comes to investigating the investigators, about their actions at the Justice Department and the FBI after the 2016 election.
We have been all over it. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intel Committee, will join me next, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."
Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone vowing to fight a seven-count indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller.
Charges include lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction related to his alleged contact with WikiLeaks and the publishing of stolen Democratic e-mails.
Joining me right now from the World Ag Expo in Tulare, California, is Congressman Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the House Intel Committee.
And, Congressman, it's always a pleasure to see you.
REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Great to be back with you this morning.
BARTIROMO: Well, I want to -- I want to get your reaction to the Stone indictment in particular, because the special counsel charged Stone with lying to your committee in 2017, the House Intel Committee, about his interactions in 2016.
Your reaction?
NUNES: Well, for two years, our committee has been mocked by the left and the media as not a serious investigation.
Yet, if you look at the indictments of the Russian actors, those came from our committee, that stuff that the Republicans found. Now you look at Roger Stone, Roger Stone is kind of an odd political figure. He's one of these flamboyant guys who runs around and is kind of a press guy, kind of this type of guy, says a lot of things, and hangs out with some very scurrilous people.
However, I think the Mueller investigation is really at the bottom of the barrel when they're looking at people like this, because we already found in our report that Roger Stone wasn't colluding with the Russians, which that was the original intent of all this.
Remember, supposedly, Trump campaign operatives, so-called, were -- were colluding with Russians. They must be embarrassed that they actually have to come to House Republicans in order to have us give them the information, the transcripts, so that they go and get Roger Stone on a process foul that occurred in 2017 that Roger Stone himself is going to fight.
The process of discovery is going to be fascinating in this case, and I can't wait to watch it.
BARTIROMO: Well, look, in testimony last summer to congressional investigators, Bruce Ohr from the Department of Justice revealed that the FBI and Justice lawyers were warned about a series of contacts, were warned that the dossier that they were using to get a wiretap on Carter Page was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats.
This very important piece of information has not been focused on in -- at all. Let me ask you about that, because the redacted version of the FISA application released shows the FBI didn't mention a connection to the DNC or Clinton.
NUNES: Yes, so this is -- the mainstream media for the last couple weeks and the left have been ignoring this, I think.
So let me -- let me try to walk people through, real quickly, if you -- if you allow me.
So why is this significant? It's significant because, for the last two years, through press reports, and through testimony to Congress, the FBI, DOJ top leaders have continued to say that they didn't have the Steele dossier, the Clinton- and Democratic-paid-for dirt, they didn't have this until September, October, or they weren't sure when they got it.
We know now when they got it. So, remember, at the end of July, they open up an investigation -- end of July of 2016, in the middle of a campaign. They use the intelligence services in this country, and they target the Trump campaign at the end of July.
At the same time, Bruce Ohr, the top career official in the Department of Justice, is acting like some kind of secret agent, meeting with this Clinton oppo guy, OK, who's digging up dirt. He's meeting, taking custody of this -- of this information, feeding it directly into the FBI and DOJ.
So I'm happy that they're -- that now DOJ is going to take seriously lying to Congress, that they're going to go after Roger Stone for lying to Congress and obstructing the congressional investigation. They need to start with themselves. They need to start with the former leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
If I were them, if you want to see lying to Congress, I would start with Strzok and Page, two of the investigators that were fired who hated Trump, didn't want to see him elected. And I would also go after the top leadership of the FBI and DOJ at the time.
BARTIROMO: But isn't that true -- isn't it true that two of the members from the FBI who were involved in this counterintelligence investigation into Trump, based on unverified and salacious information from this dossier, now those two people work for Robert Mueller?
NUNES: Oh, yes, Maria, very good point that the media continues to ignore.
So, not only is it two of the people. First of all, it was four. Two got fired. But one of them is actually the top person, the number two, the deputy, Mueller's -- Mueller's deputy, that the press and the left calls the attack dog, the pit bull.
BARTIROMO: Andrew Weissmann.
NUNES: This is a joke, OK?
So -- so, yes, this is -- this is a joke. We need to know, what's in the scope memo, OK? Did -- did these guys, did -- the two left, because the other two got fired -- or the two that left on the Mueller counsel, special counsel.
Were they involved in the chain of custody of this information? Because they were involved. They got the information from Bruce Ohr. Did they just disclose this to the FBI? Because, remember -- let me make the major point -- none of this was disclosed to the FISA court when they went and spied on the Trump campaign using these very sophisticated tools that we have in our arsenal that are supposed to target terrorists and other bad guys, they used to target a political campaign operative, OK, on the Trump campaign, using this dirt.
These people were all in the -- in the chain of custody of this information. It's absolutely ludicrous.
BARTIROMO: So, I ask you...
NUNES: And, look, if this doesn't get solved here -- here's what's happening, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
NUNES: Here's what's happening.
If the Department of Justice and the FBI do not go after and prosecute these people for lying to Congress, if they don't clean up their act and actually get down to, really, are you going to find Russian collusion or are you not with Trump, because you haven't found any yet, are you going to go after the Clinton campaign for colluding with Russians?
Is anyone going to do that at Department of Justice, FBI? We have to have a Department of Justice and FBI in this country that 99.9 percent of Americans have trust and confidence in that they're impartial, that they're not going to be political.
BARTIROMO: Will William Barr do it, the incoming A.G.? Will Robert Mueller investigate this within his special counsel report?
NUNES: Well, Mueller definitely won't do it.
I mean, they're so tainted already by this, I can't imagine that they would. Let's not -- let's not forget...
BARTIROMO: What about Bill Barr, the new A.G.? Where's the accountability, Congressman?
NUNES: I don't know if Bill Barr will. I hope so. I hope Bill Barr will do it.
But, remember, our investigation is not over. The walls -- we continue every day to get more and more information. And the walls continue to close in.
Let me -- let me mention something else that I think is very important.
BARTIROMO: Real quick.
NUNES: We don't even know what Mueller's doing. We haven't seen the scope memo. We don't know what he's been -- been given to do, right? We don't know what he's supposed to be up to.
BARTIROMO: Right. You...
NUNES: I think it's possible that the Steele dossier, the Clinton dirt, is what's in that scope memo that they refuse to make public to the American people and even refuse to brief Congress on.
BARTIROMO: All right, hold that thought.
We're going to take a short break and come right back with Devin Nunes, congressmen from California.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
We are back with California Congressman Devin Nunes, ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.
And, Congressman, a moment ago, you said, next week, we will see more transcripts released. You said your investigation is ongoing. Will you be making criminal referrals?
NUNES: Look, the goal of all this is -- is to make sure that everyone's held accountable. So, we will be taking all the information.
And we continue to -- I think the walls are closing in. We're getting closer and closer and closer to the people that were -- that need to be held responsible for this.
Now, remember, we don't have a police force, OK? And the Republicans, we're not even -- we don't hold the gavels anymore, right, in the House. So all we can really do is refer people to the Department of Justice for prosecution and for this to be investigated.
So I'm hopeful that that will happen with the new attorney general, but we will be -- we will continue to compile information. We will continue to conduct interviews, and we will continue to be transparent with the American people on this.
BARTIROMO: All right.
And you said the scope memo is very important. Why is that so important that you see the scope memo, which basically tells us why they launched the special counsel investigation into Trump potential collusion?
NUNES: Yes.
So, if you remember, when the special counsel was first named, there was no -- when Rod Rosenstein and the Department of Justice had the first information that was put out, I don't even think it met the regs.
So, then -- so that was around April, May of 2017. You have to go all the way to August that they put another memo forward and gave direction to the special counsel.
We have no idea what's in there, OK? I -- I'm just speculating here, OK? But I believe it's very possible that they used uncorroborated information that came from the Clinton campaign. And that could be in there as part of what they told the special counsel to do, which would be a major, major problem.
Look -- and I don't know if it's in there or not.
BARTIROMO: Major problem being against the law.
NUNES: But I can't, for the life of me, understand -- well, why would you not be public about this?
We have had the special counsel now. It goes on and on and on. It never ends. They're getting people on process fouls. They put forth information to -- that makes it look like -- it's nice storytelling.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
NUNES: Because, when you read these indictments, it reads like a secret spy novel of all these characters hanging out with Russia.
BARTIROMO: Mm-hmm.
NUNES: But the truth is, they're getting them for process fouls. And they are not -- there's no evidence of collusion with the Russians, except for the obvious people that were colluding with Russians, which was the Clinton campaign and the Democrats.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, let me -- let me move on to another investigation that your committee has been all over. And that is into China and what China has been doing. We have been talking about this with you for a year.
This most recent case, a spy case linked to China, raising red flags for now Poland, one of the U.S.' very important allies. We have got a meeting this upcoming Wednesday between U.S. and Chinese officials that we could see a deal happen before a March 1 deadline between U.S. and China.
But the idea of espionage, I.P. theft, forced technology transfer, I spoke with Dr. Fang, who is one of the officials in China who oversees the financial services industry.
Here's what he said when I asked him about a potential deal in terms of opening markets in China and other things. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: Obviously, opening up the markets in China appears to be a priority for the Chinese leadership and to the rest of the world.
FANG XINGHAI, CHINA SECURITIES REGULATORY COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Yes.
BARTIROMO: How much of a priority is the forced transfer of technology and I.P. theft?
FANG: I'm not an expert in this area.
(LAUGHTER)
FANG: We are against forced technology transfer. And I.P. theft, of course, is not something that we would like see. I think we can sit down and talk about these things.
BARTIROMO: Would that be something, as far -- as far as part of a deal with the United States, that you would try to make progress on those issues?
FANG: We are willing to talk to the United States on every issue that the U.S. raises.
And our overall objective is to have cooperative relations in economics, as well as in other areas, with the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: So, where are we on all of this, Congressman?
Because one fear among both Polish and U.S. officials is that China might have access to allied intelligence shared with Poland and then passed it on to Moscow.
NUNES: Well, what I would say first is, is that congratulations to our allies.
The Polish government, as you know, have been in a very difficult spot in the world, right on the Russian border. And for them to -- and with an emerging economy, a growing economy, for them to take on the Chinese juggernaut, hats off to them for taking this issue seriously.
So, what the Chinese are doing is that they have these companies that are essentially owned by the party, the Communist Party. And, essentially, this is a dictatorship. There's very few people that own these companies. They weaponize them.
So, when all over the -- all over the world, you have Chinese technology, specifically as it relates to infrastructure, communications infrastructure. They will go in, and they beat every other company around the world. And, in fact, they have driven a lot of companies out of business, because they come in and undercut.
Now, how is that possible? It's not possible. But they want to have control over all the com systems, the communication systems all over the globe. And I think what the -- what the Poles realized that -- was that they were coming in, doing that to the Polish infrastructure.
And we need to make sure that all of our allies around the world are not using this Chinese technology, until they're willing to be totally transparent...
BARTIROMO: Right.
NUNES: ... and have multiple people looking over this technology.
BARTIROMO: Right.
And that's why the CFO of Huawei was detained. And that's what you say. You have talked to us a number of times on this program about what the Chinese are doing an African countries. We will take care of your whole telecom infrastructure, no problem, free of charge.
We know nothing is free, because they're tapping into your phone calls and your intelligence.
Look, you just mentioned Russia. I also had a conversation with the general-secretary of NATO while I was in Davos last week. And here's what he said about NATO and the U.S.' involvement, along with our European friends.
Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL: We are -- NATO is an alliance of 29 allies from both sides of the Atlantic, with different political parties and government, different history, different culture.
And some are neighbors of Russia. Some are not. So there are differences. There are disagreements, also, for instance, on energy issues.
But the strength of NATO is that, despite those differences -- for instance, on this pipeline from Russia -- we have always been able to unite in NATO around our core task, and that is that we protect and defend each other.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: So, I remember a couple of times ago, when you were on this program, Congressman, you called us from Georgia. And we were talking there -- I was talking with Jens Stoltenberg about this pipeline that Germany is relying on from Russia.
Why wouldn't Germany want to buy energy from the United States, now the number one producer, rather than being vulnerable to Russia, given what we know about the Russians?
NUNES: Well, with the current Russian aggression that's taking place all over the globe, and especially in Eastern Europe, it's amazing me that the Germans have not figured this out.
After two World Wars, after the Cold War, you would think they would figure this out. They don't seem to care, which I think should bother everyone around the globe. The Germans are great allies of ours. They have a -- they have a big economy.
But yet -- we were just talking about Poland. Poland, Romania, and others realize that, as long as the Russians and Putin are acting the way that they're acting, it is not OK for people within NATO to be striking deals that would make them reliant, totally reliant.
That's the problem here, is, if you become reliant on a dictatorship like the Putin regime, you really put yourself and you put all of Europe in a very bad position.
So, where does the gas need to come from? I think it needs to come from places like Central Asia, Azerbaijan, North Africa, and the United States.
And where I think -- I believe that the Poland actually did already take in LNG, purchase LNG from the United States.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
NUNES: So, until Russia cleans up their act, we shouldn't be putting in new pipelines at all, because it just goes to fund this radical regime.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, it's good you see this morning. Thanks so much.
NUNES: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Congressman Devin Nunes.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise is with me next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
President Trump and Democrats reaching a three-week deal to end the longest government shutdown in history. It doesn't include funding for a border wall, as the president had demanded.
House Minority Whip Louisiana Republican Congressman Steve Scalise joins me right now.
And, Congressman, it is a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Good morning, Maria. Always great to be back with you.
BARTIROMO: Do you expect to have border wall funding in the next three weeks, before the next deadline?
SCALISE: Well, I sure hope it's going to be part of a final agreement.
And while President Trump said, we're going to give you another three weeks, kind of calling the Democrats' bluff, who were saying, we won't negotiate on wall while the -- while the government's closed, OK, now the government's reopened.
We have to have a real specific conversation about how much money they will support. The president said -- and it's not the president. It's our experts who protect the border who say it's going to cost $5.7 billion for all the technology, including wall.
What are the Democrats willing to support? They're going to have to put a real number to paper now in these next three weeks, Maria.
BARTIROMO: So what do you think they will support?
I know that you have actually had support from your colleagues on the other side, some colleagues on the other side. But is the Democratic Party facing its own division, where a part of it is -- part of the party is just resist, resist, resist whatever the president comes up with?
SCALISE: Yes, I think we were starting to see fissures.
And, in fact, you saw even the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, saying physical barriers should be part of the solution. You had committee chairmen on the Democrat side saying, give the president the money for the wall.
And so I think this growing drumbeat got Pelosi nervous. But, at the same time, she's going to now have to confront it, because in every negotiation I have been in, when we have had meetings in the White House with the president, when pressed on, what amount of money will she support, she always said, I won't talk about numbers while the government is shut down.
OK, now the government's back open. It's time to get serious about these negotiations. Hopefully, there is a State of the Union that happens in the next two weeks, which I think there will be. And the president can make even a stronger case to the rest of the country, because it's that growing support across the country that ultimately will push more Democrats to our side.
BARTIROMO: Now, wait a minute. What do you mean that you think there will be a State of the Union?
The American people want a State of the Union. The State of the Union was supposed to be this Tuesday. It feels like Nancy Pelosi has bested the president, obviously. She now forced him to not have the State of the Union this week.
I'm being told it's going to be February 5. Is the State of the Union happening on February 5?
SCALISE: Well, the -- Nancy Pelosi was holding the State of the Union hostage.
And, ultimately, the speaker has to invite the president. The Constitution requires the president to give a State of the Union. It doesn't mean it has to be in Congress, but it ought to be in Congress.
And, Maria, I'm hearing similar things, that February 5 is likely the date. But, ultimately, that's something that's up to the speaker of the House, if it's going to be in the House chamber, which it should be.
I thought it was disgraceful that she removed the State of the Union from the invitation that she had already issued to the president, to say that she was going to uninvite him. That had never happened before in the history of our country.
I think Nancy Pelosi is afraid of the country hearing this message that the president has about why we need to secure the border.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, stay with us. We're going to slip in a short break.
I have got more to talk with you about this situation. It certainly feels like politics, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise.
Also joining the conversation is Mark Penn, out with a new op-ed this morning -- straight ahead.
"Sunday Morning Futures" continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: I'm back with House Minority Whip Louisiana Republican Congressman Steve Scalise.
Congressman, you just said, yes, you think it is February 5 for the State of the Union. Why is there uncertainty about this? The American people want a State of the Union.
SCALISE: The American people deserve a State of the Union, and it ought to be in the House chamber.
The speaker of the House controls the House chamber. Nancy Pelosi, I thought, was very petty in uninviting the president from the original date that they agreed upon. I think she ought to do it quickly. I think, early next week, she ought to send a letter out formally inviting the president.
February 5 is a date that seems to work well. But do that quickly. End the charade. And, frankly, I think it's -- it's something the American people look at in a very negative way when they look at Nancy Pelosi trying to hold the State of the Union hostage as part of this debate over border security.
BARTIROMO: Congressman ,it's really good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for being here. We will see you soon.
SCALISE: Always great to be with you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: And joining me right now is Mark Penn. He is managing partner at The Stagwell Group and a Harris Poll chairman. He's also a former pollster and adviser to President Clinton.
And, Mark, it's great to see you this morning.
Your most recent op-ed in The Hill is titled: "Mueller's Selective Prosecution of Stone Venezuelan Style."
Explain.
MARK PENN, AUTHOR, "MICROTRENDS SQUARED": Well, because this prosecution is -- clearly, what they did here was pick Roger Stone, go after him until they found something. And that's what you do. You go after political opponents.
I mean, there's a point in the op-ed, wow, the lawyer for the DNC with John Podesta said to Congress they didn't know where the funding came from. And here you have the lawyer who funded it sitting right there. You have Christopher Steele, who lied to the FBI about his press contacts.
You have major events related to this, and none of those are being investigated or prosecuted. But Roger Stone is being prosecuted for not revealing that he was dealing with Jerome Corsi. Who the heck cares about Jerome Corsi? He was banned from the Internet for false stories.
BARTIROMO: But can Robert Mueller appear credible without looking at all the misdeeds that we talk about every day on the left in terms of the cabal of people at the FBI and the DOJ who tried to change an election in 2016?
PENN: Well, Mueller is appearing less and less credible each day.
You look at the Washington Post/ABC poll, and very few Americans really thought that he -- that his report will be credible. And I think -- I think that credibility continues to shrink in the way he operates.
BARTIROMO: All right, we will leave it there.
Mark, it's good to see you. I know you're going to be joining me for FOX Nation, so do stay with us for that.
That will do it for "Sunday Morning Futures." I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for being here.
I will see you tomorrow, "Mornings With Maria" 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern on the FOX Business Network tomorrow.
As well, "Media Buzz" with Howie Kurtz is up next right after this short break.
Have a great Sunday, everybody.
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.