Phil Wegmann on the president's spending plans: ‘This may be Biden’s last chance to do something big’
Phil Wegmann, Real Clear Politics, discusses President Biden's push to pass the spending bill on 'Your World'
This is a rush transcript of "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on September 29, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: It's a real possibility in the not-too-distant future, six, 12, 18, 24, 36 months, that kind of time frame, for reconstitution of Al Qaeda or ISIS.
And it's our job now, under different conditions, but it's our job to continue to protect the American citizens against attacks from Afghanistan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right, day two of testimony of the top generals, General Mark Milley, the defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, taking questions about what happened and when and who knew what and when about what would be the ultimate collapse of Afghanistan.
Growing questions, though, what will be life in Afghanistan, and now that the Taliban have taken over? Some scary possibilities raised today.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto and this is "Your World."
And what in the world to make of the latest warnings from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Afghanistan remains a powder keg and could disintegrate in a matter of months, at best, 18 months?
Let's get the read for the Pentagon and our Jennifer Griffin -- Jennifer.
JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.
Well, today's hearing was supposed to be about Afghanistan. But there were a lot of heated questions from Republicans about General Milley's decision to speak to Bob Woodward in the book "Peril."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): You spent more time with Bob Woodward on this book than you spent analyzing the very likely prospect that the Afghanistan government was going to fall immediately to the Taliban, didn't you?
MILLEY: Not even close, Congressman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was quoted in that book as well. And a lot of what I said was conflated and not 100 percent accurately portrayed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRIFFIN: Democrats focused on how the withdrawal began with the agreement signed with the Taliban by the Trump administration, going down from 13,000 U.S. troops, despite the Taliban complying with all but one aspect or not only one aspect of the conditions-based agreement, most importantly, that the Taliban never broke with Al Qaeda.
General Milley said he learned of the Taliban agreement just days before it was signed. General McKenzie repeated that he and General Scott Miller recommended keeping 2, 500 American troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you call the retreat of military forces under security provided by and with the permission of enemy forces?
GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Don't know. I have never done one of those operations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think you just did one of those outbreaks.
MCKENZIE: I disagree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You disagree. So you did not withdraw forces from Afghanistan after a negotiation with the Taliban?
MCKENZIE: That is correct. We did not do that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So this would not be a conditional surrender, in your opinion? This would not be a conditional surrender.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRIFFIN: One question that was left on answered asked by Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri was whether the suicide bomber that killed 13 Americans that Abbey Gate had been an ISIS prisoner jailed at Bagram Air Base until the U.S. left and the Taliban released him -- back to you, Neil.
CAVUTO: Jennifer, thank you very much, Jennifer Griffin at the Pentagon here.
The big question then comes back to, what did the president know, when did he know it, and did he either forget or choose to ignore the warnings he was getting from top military aides? We still don't know.
And it's gotten foggier as the days go on.
Jacqui Heinrich has more now from the White House -- Jacqui.
JACQUI HEINRICH, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Neil.
Yes, for the second day in a row, the White House insisted that what the president told ABC last month, that none of his advisers recommended keeping 2, 500 troops in Afghanistan, is not being contradicted by his own generals testifying under oath on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don't think we need to dumb this down for people, because this is a really important issue.
What we're talking about here was an initial recommendation in the short initial period of time of having a troop presence that would continue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEINRICH: But the president answered that point-blank question from ABC with a point-blank answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2, 500 troops.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, they didn't. It was split.
That wasn't true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEINRICH: The transcript of that interview did not indicate that there was any additional context that we were missing from that, even though that is what the White House appears to be claiming today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PSAKI: I think it's important to understand the context here too.
Obviously, we know a lot more now than we knew several months ago.
And there was no credible option to keep an ongoing presence of 25 (sic) troops over the long term. And what's clear now is that it would have been much higher than that. And they conveyed that today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEINRICH: So, since the top military brass have made those statements on Capitol Hill, we have not had a chance to ask the president about that.
He's focused on the spending bills.
He's meeting with members of Congress and potentially possibly going to a congressional baseball game tonight as a bit of a push to get that through now, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Jacqui Heinrich, thank you for that.
The defense secretary was not spared in this angry exchange either. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): ... president know? Did he forget what was told to him, or is he not being truthful?
LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I view that as an inappropriate question, and I...
JOHNSON: Well, you may, but the American people don't.
And the American people want and deserve accountability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right.
To Rebeccah Heinrichs of The Hudson Institute, what she makes of all of this.
Clearly, there are different recollections of this, but it's fairly clear as well, Rebeccah, that the president was duly warned by more than just a couple of top military advisers that a drawdown at this time to zero would be problematic. I don't think there's any way to dance around that basic inconsistency from the White House.
What do you think?
REBECCAH HEINRICHS, THE HUDSON INSTITUTE: Now these are painful facts that Jen Psaki cannot spin. She cannot circle back to get us more information that would make sense or disentangle this for President Biden.
We learned today under oath that the generals charged with providing their best military advice advised the president to keep 2, 500 troops in the country. And President Biden on that exact question by Stephanopoulos said that no one, no one had made that recommendation to him.
So, I mean, all the American people can do now is have two -- we have got two options before us, two theories. Either President Biden was lying to Stephanopoulos and then to the American people about that point, or he actually doesn't remember on something so important, which I think is a worse problem for the American people.
It's so weird to be in a position where you're actually kind of hoping that the president was lying, because I think that would be a worse situation than the alternative.
CAVUTO: I'm just wondering, too. So much came out of today's House hearing that didn't get nearly as much attention as the Senate hearing, but I thought it was interesting to hear General Milley talking about what is emerging as a very imploding Afghanistan, where you have ISIS-K fighters and others competing to take down the Taliban and just outright civil war, for which we're little prepared to act because we don't have any troops there, any personnel there at all.
What did you make of that?
HEINRICHS: That's the most important concern that I have at this point, is that we don't have this over-the-horizon capability we keep hearing about.
I mean, we saw the first example of what an over-the-horizon capability would look like in that retaliatory drone strike after 13 of our service members were killed, in which the United States did a drone strike that took out no jihadists that were responsible for the attack and instead took out innocent noncombatants, including children.
So is that -- and that's what we're supposed to look forward to for what's going to be an over-the-horizon capability? Whose intelligence did we rely on? Was it the Taliban?
The other point, Neil, I thought was important that came out during this hearing is that General McKenzie admitted that the Taliban, in fact, did make the offer for the United States to be the ones that secured -- the U.S. military to secure Kabul. But that option was not something that General McKenzie could do because President Biden gate told him that he could only have about 600 troops in country.
These were political decisions that President Biden made that put our military in an unwinnable situation that led to the disasters that we're continuing to see unfold.
This must mark the Biden presidency. And it's very concerning about what other kinds of decisions President Biden is making on security matters.
CAVUTO: You know, Rebeccah, finally, I found it curious that all these top military officials were almost itching to say, all right, we defer to the commander in chief. That's what we do. We understand that, but we didn't think this was a good idea. We're still worried about the status of Afghanistan and the region as we speak, that they wanted to get that off their chest.
That was clear, regardless of how this might make the president feel. What did you make of that?
HEINRICHS: That's definitely the sense I had, that they were really saying that this was all driven by political decisions.
And then, of course, General Milley made this, I think, uncomfortable comment that he thought that this was a logistical success. But it was not a logistical success, Neil, because the Taliban is the one that approved those flight manifests and put a bunch of people on those planes that they wanted out of Afghanistan.
We did not get all the SIVs out. We did not get vulnerable Christians and other religious minorities out. We did not get American citizens out who want out and green card holders and allies. This was not a logistical success.
This was a series of reckless political decisions made by President Biden when he ignored the advice of his commanders. And he needs to be held accountable. And these military officers should be held accountable too for not pushing back hard enough or making big statements by resigning, because they said, I'm not going to put our troops and American lives at risk by these foolish and politically hasty and reckless decisions of the commander in chief.
CAVUTO: Yes, and they have even said now they wouldn't resign.
Rebeccah Heinrichs, thank you very, very much on that.
In the meantime, the president was supposed to be in Chicago today. He canceled those plans to sort of stay in Washington, D.C., to hammer out some sort of agreement that can ensure an infrastructure vote tomorrow -- that's the infrastructure-only package -- and cobble together some sort of agreement on the far larger human infrastructure plan that, so far, Democrats are fighting over, forget about Republicans -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, we're just receiving word that Nancy Pelosi has been spotted at the White House.
You might recall that there's been a lot of negotiating back and forth to try to keep Democrats on the same page to, A, get an infrastructure vote going tomorrow and then, secondly, to find some agreement on the much larger so-called human infrastructure package.
The president, in fact, canceled plans will be in Chicago today, so that he could be nearby to handle any of these updates.
Chad Pergram now with more from Washington.
Hey, Chad. What's going on?
CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Good afternoon, Neil.
Will, the presence of the speaker at the White House tells you a lot. And the canceled trip to Chicago today by the president was a signal things were getting serious about salvaging the $3.5 trillion social spending package. The overall price tag likely slips into the $2 trillion range, but they can't go too low, or Democrats lose liberals.
That's why the key of what's in or out of the bill, that's what they have to figure out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I think that, if we come to a place where we have agreement in legislative language, because we're at the mercy of the Senate and its customs and its parliamentarian and its rules, we can't bring something to the floor without the approval of the parliamentarian, in order to preserve the 51 votes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERGRAM: Being at the mercy of the Senate means that you're really at the mercy of two senators, moderate Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): We haven't been negotiating in good faith. No one has been negotiating along those lines with the other party to see what would be acceptable.
All we need to do is pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, sit down and start negotiating in good faith.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERGRAM: Democrats can only muscle their bill through the Senate if they have all 50 Democrats on board, and Vice President Harris breaks the tie.
There is nothing magic about doing this bill in the next couple of days. It will likely take longer, maybe even a few weeks. But Pelosi says the House will vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill Thursday.
Also, there appears to be an agreement to avert a government shutdown.
Pelosi says there will be a big vote tomorrow, Neil.
CAVUTO: Now, progressives weren't too keen on that unless some other issues were finalized, or at least taken up in the Senate.
That now, with the argument over the price tag, means that's not going to happen and you have to rely on good faith. Will they rely on good faith and let it happen and vote?
PERGRAM: Well, it depends.
And we might see this play out over the next couple of hours, as the president tries to twist some arms. Jen Psaki in the White House briefing today was very cagey when asked whether or not the president would go to the Congressional Baseball Game tonight at Nats Park.
Now, we saw this play in 2015. In 2015, President Obama was trying to get a trade framework through the House and Senate, and he unexpectedly showed up at the Congressional Baseball Game to try to whip the vote on both sides of the aisle. And it didn't work out too hot. It failed the next day, Neil.
CAVUTO: Wow. I had forgotten about that.
Thank you, my friend, Chad Pergram, in the middle of all of that, keeping track of that, as is Phil Wegmann of RealClearPolitics.
Phil, great to have you.
Let's assume this vote goes as scheduled tomorrow. Progressives would have to sort of hold their nose a little bit. But then what? What if they then take out their wrath and say we're not going to support this?
PHILIP WEGMANN, REALCLEARPOLITICS: Well then, if Jen Psaki's construction is correct that they have been living in a television show for the last couple of weeks during negotiations over spending, that this will look more like "Veep" and less like "The West Wing."
(LAUGHTER)
WEGMANN: Obviously, the press secretary was joking there, but it kind of gets to the tension of what's happening right now.
The administration, they know the gravity of the situation, because President Biden desperately needs a win. He needs to bring both sides of the party to some sort of peace agreement, because, with the midterms looming, this might be the president's last chance to do something big while Democrats are still in control of Congress.
CAVUTO: Now, the question is, how big right, Phil?
And we don't know a number. We haven't heard it from Kyrsten Sinema. We certainly haven't heard it from Joe Manchin; $3.5 trillion was too big. The rumor, the talk, the whisper number seems to be something in the $2.5 trillion range.
What are you hearing?
WEGMANN: Well, we have been hearing a lot of griping from progressives all summer, long before this.
Senator Bernie Sanders was complaining that $3.5 trillion was not enough.
He says that he has already compromised, and he would have been happier with a figure around the $6 trillion neighborhood.
Obviously, that's not going to happen right now. And so, essentially, the White House is sort of in the middle of this fight, where you have Senator Bernie Sanders saying he's compromised enough, and if Pelosi actually does decouple the infrastructure bill from the larger reconciliation bill, that he's going to sink that money for roads and bridges in the Senate.
The White House, though, they were asked today in the Briefing Room about AOC's threat to follow suit with Sanders and vote against the bipartisan package, and the line from the White House thus far is, they trust the process, they trust the speaker. They have not been eager to get in the middle of what is a very messy food fight.
CAVUTO: We do know that Chuck Schumer is also seen at the White House, besides Nancy Pelosi, so thy cobbling together something. If, for example, the vote on the infrastructure package is pulled tomorrow, all bets are off, right, including even the temporary funding for the U.S. government to keep the lights on.
WEGMANN: Yes, that's what's interesting here, that it's not just the reconciliation package. It's not just that bipartisan infrastructure package.
CAVUTO: Right.
WEGMANN: It's also when you have a government shutdown looming.
Isn't it interesting how Washington, D.C., only seems to get things done when there's a cliff that they have to avoid? But on the number, what's interesting, you mentioned that Sinema and Manchin haven't given a number.
Jen Psaki seemed to give an indication that the president was willing possibly to come down, she said, that that $3.5 trillion number is something that they knew could be lower, and her expectation was that everyone is going to have to give a bit.
I think, at this point, President Biden is eventually going to have to play peacemaker and get all of these disparate camps to come together and just settle on something.
CAVUTO: Yes. When $2.5 trillion is considered the cheap, insulting alternative, we live in different times, my friend.
I'm a lot older than you. That used to be the whole U.S. budget, but, man, oh, man.
Thank you very much, Phil Wegmann, on all of that.
WEGMANN: Thank you, sir.
CAVUTO: We will keep you posted with these developments out of the White House.
Also keep you posted on vaccines. You have probably heard, in a lot of counties and states, they're kind of really demanding them. Some companies, including United Airlines, are saying, you better get the vaccine, or you don't have a job.
The fallout -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: Everyone makes a big deal over Tom Brady, 44 years old, still playing football.
Talk to Chuck Grassley, 88 years old, and he's gunning for another Senate term.
Take that, Tom Brady.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: Well, you have heard this a few times, right, no jab, no job. A lot of employers coming down hard on unvaccinated workers.
United Airlines taking it to the next level by saying, you don't get a vaccine you're out of here permanently.
The fallout right now with Susan Li and the latest -- Susan.
SUSAN LI, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, that's right.
So, United Airlines making good on their vaccine mandate, planning to fire almost 600 still haven't gotten their vaccine. So, United has ordered all of their 67,000 staff to get their shots by this Monday; 593 still haven't.
And they haven't filed for their exemptions either. So they can still save their jobs if they can get vaccinated in the upcoming days.
But it's surprising that 97 percent of the airline staff have already gotten their shots; 2,000 have received exemptions, and they will be put on unpaid leave. Starting next month. However, you have a class-action lawsuit that's been filed by some of these suing United over discrimination.
No vaccine mandates over at Delta, but you know that they are charging an extra $200 a month in health care costs for those that haven't gotten their shots. Southwest and American are encouraging their staff to get the vaccine, but not mandating them just yet.
Now, it's not just airlines. All health care workers are required to be vaccinated by the White House. One large North Carolina hospital system called Novant has fired 175 for not getting their shots.
In Texas, more than 150 hospital staff have resigned or have been fired, six in New Jersey. Now, here in New York, hundreds of hospital workers have been suspended and face termination if they don't get vaccinated soon.
And the New York governor's office says that over 90 percent of hospital staff and nursing homes have already gotten their shots. But, also, Neil, interesting that, here in New York City, you have reports of some undercover cops being threatened with demotion if they're not vaccinated.
The NYPD doesn't have a vaccine mandate, but they say that undercover cops need to go into restaurants and other venues to do their jobs. And, yes, they need to show their vaccine cards in order to do that.
CAVUTO: Wild. And it's not ending.
LI: Yes.
CAVUTO: All right, Susan Li, thank you for that.
So, is all this legal?
Let's ask Andy McCarthy, FOX News contributor, former assistant U.S.
attorney.
Andy, what do you think? I guess there is a difference between a company trying to enforce a policy like this, and, let's say, a county or a state, but what do you think?
ANDY MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Neil, you're quite right.
And when a company enforces it, it's going to get a lot of leeway, because they have a right to run their business the way they choose to run their business and to hire who they wish to hire.
Now, a lot of these arrangements, the private arrangements, are freighted obviously by business contracts and union contracts that have been negotiated. So, the big issue in these cases is likely to be, is the action that United's taken in some way in breach of those agreements? But if it's not, private companies like United are going to have a lot of leeway here.
CAVUTO: So, we have seen this pattern get more broad.
And, certainly, corporate America, responding the way it has, it's been a very kind of in-your-face type of a policy here. But there are workers who might claim on religious grounds or because of personal health issues that they have, pregnant women, et cetera, that they have an out.
I'm wondering if that cuts it in some of these black-and-white corporate policies.
MCCARTHY: It will cut it less, Neil, I think, in private company arrangements than it would in government arrangements.
So, I think you and I talked some time back about the University of Indiana when their mandate got upheld.
CAVUTO: Right.
MCCARTHY: They were found to be a government entity. And their vaccination program or mandate was approved by the court, with the caveat that they had these religious exemptions and also health exemptions for people for whom they could show that the vaccination was potentially a health problem for them.
Those are constitutional concerns that apply to government entities. They are not generally part of the private employment arrangement. There, you're going to have to look much more carefully at the four corners of whatever contracts are involved.
CAVUTO: All right, we will watch it closely.
Andy McCarthy, thanks very much for this.
We will see what happens here, but a lot of companies are indeed enforcing this, the latest, Harvard Business School, by the way, which has already suspended most in person MBA classes after a COVID outbreak. But that, again, is not an order. It's just, in light of the cases, they thought the better part of valor was to just cease in person classes.
All right, in the meantime, guess who's back in court? Britney Spears.
And, this time, she's on the verge of winning something she has sought for years -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, you are looking live in Los Angeles right now.
These are a lot of Britney Spears fans who are outside a courthouse waiting to get an update on -- as to whether Britney Spears will succeed in getting rid of her dad as a conservator and replacing him with some sort of professional arrangement, a conservator in that capacity.
We don't know the full details or even whether Britney herself is there.
But we do know that Matt Finn knows what's at stake at this, joins us now from Los Angeles.
Matt, what can you tell us?
MATT FINN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, the movement is called Free Britney.
And this afternoon, inside of this Los Angeles courthouse, Britney Spears could essentially be freed from the conservatorship underneath her father.
Right now, there are dozens, if not hundreds of Britney fans outside of this courtroom.
There is a street here in downtown Los Angeles that is blocked off. And moments ago, we talked to some of Britney's friends about Free Britney.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: End of conservatorship abuse, that means the ends of abuse of the probate court system, and it means liberating a pop star who was a beacon of hope to me as a child.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Allegedly, the Free Britney army has been crazy, and it turns out, after 13 years, we have been right this whole time.
I'm tired of hearing the word allegedly, because it's all been true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FINN: Now, here's what we do know.
This afternoon, a judge is expected to possibly make some rulings on a series of petitions all filed since Britney made headlines this summer, when she for the first time spoke publicly in detail about what she calls a dehumanizing, embarrassing conservatorship.
After years of turmoil, both Britney and her father have agreed to end Britney's conservatorship as it stands. But the drama is not over just yet.
Britney's team has recommended an accountant, Jason Rubin, immediately replace her father. Jamie Spears, the father, objects, arguing Rubin is not qualified and the conservatorship should just end altogether.
Also, in a new documentary, people close to Britney, including her wardrobe manager, allege that Jamie Spears was so controlling, he would take away Britney's cell phone and even secretly record her. Those allegations have not been confirmed.
A spokesperson for Jamie Spears tells FOX News in part -- quote -- "All of his actions were well within the parameters of the authority conferred upon him by the court. His actions were done with the knowledge and consent of Britney, her court-appointed attorney and/or the court. Jamie's record as a conservator and the court approval of his actions speaks for themselves."
Now, the hearing this afternoon was set to begin about five minutes ago. We have a producer inside. And we will keep you updated on the outcome of what might be a critical day in the Free Britney movement -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, thanks for that, Matt Finn.
Mark Eiglarsh joins us right now, criminal defense attorney extraordinaire.
Mark, I thought the father had some time ago said: I don't want this conservatorship. If you don't want it, Britney, I mean, let's rip it up.
So where did that go?
MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, that's what he's saying.
But he wants it on his terms.
He wants $1.3 million that he spent to defend against Britney wanting him out to be wiped off the books. He wants to over a half-a-million dollars in a P.R. firm that he hired to control the media, he wants that off the books.
So he's saying, I want out, but he wants out under his terms.
CAVUTO: So, what is her lawyer petitioning for now, that -- it's one thing to get rid of him but there would still be, I guess, some sort of a professional conservator to help this process along?
Does she even need that? Would she protest that?
EIGLARSH: OK, so let's break it down.
There are people who are saying free Britney, free Britney. And to their dismay, I have the following to tell them. The only thing we know for sure that will not happen today is, this will not be over, because, like filet mignon at McDonald's, it ain't on the menu.
The only thing that they're discussing today is whether the father should be out or not. Her conservatorship, that's not on the menu. They're not discussing whether that should end today. It will eventually, but not today.
CAVUTO: All right, so let's say he's out.
And you're right. I don't know what will come of this hearing. But the possibility that someone would be overseeing at least her financial life is very much, for the time being, in the cards.
EIGLARSH: Yes, there will be someone who will replace Spears' father temporarily, a guy by the name of Zabel, who isn't that interesting.
The father, who's accused of doing so many things that were -- are so nefarious, that something has to be legitimate on that list of accusations, he's saying, I'm out. Oh, but that guy's not qualified.
Listen, buddy, who are you to say who's qualified or not? You're out. She wants you out. You're saying you want out. Step aside and let her team put in temporarily who's going to carry out what you allegedly did, but in her best interests.
CAVUTO: If she has had 13 or 14 years of dealing with this, and she's making an argument, I can take care of myself, I don't know what her lawyer really wants or what she ultimately wants, but does someone at this stage in her career and her life and her maturity and the changes and all that warrant no oversight at all?
EIGLARSH: The answer's yes.
When you think of conservatorship, you -- I don't think that many lawyers anywhere could point to someone who actually has a job and has this over them. We're talking about people in a coma, people who've had massive strokes, extraordinary mental disabilities.
It's not for a pop star who's been able to perform. And, listen, if having
-- being a little off, not being 100 percent was the standard, then most of Hollywood would be under a conservatorship.
CAVUTO: No, that's a very good point, Mark.
Thank you very, very much, Mark Eiglarsh.
And I know what a lot of you are thinking as you're listening to Mark and I sort of wrap this up. Neil, the government is on the brink of shutting down. We're hitting a debt ceiling. We're spending trillions of dollars, and you want to focus on Free Britney?
Yes, because it is part of the vast texture of our country. That's all.
We will have more after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, think that things are kind of slowing at the border, when everyone was sort of cleared out of that underpass?
Well, there are other developments to tell you about.
Griff Jenkins with the latest that he's seeing firsthand -- Griff.
GRIFF JENKINS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Neil.
I'm in the middle of the Suchiate River floating illegally on a raft between Guatemala to my right and Mexico to my left. Now, there's an international bridge in the distance where you legally cross, but much more prefer to just do it this way.
If you look upriver -- Mark (ph), our cameraman, will point up there -- you see people going across all day long, day in, day out. The local officials say that some 800 Haitians alone are illegally crossing here and that every one of those 15,000 Haitians you saw under that bridge in Del Rio last week came through this crossing.
And it comes as we're learning and confirming with Mexican officials that
15,000 are down in South America headed this way. Meanwhile, in the city of Tapachula, just beyond the Mexican banks here, there's 13,000 Haitians applying for refugee status.
An interesting development, the U.S.-based immigration rights activist Irineo Mujica, who runs the Pueblo Sin Fronteras organization that helped organize those caravans of 2019, he's down here slamming the Biden administration, saying they're no different than the Trump administration.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IRINEO MUJICA, PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS: Just tell me a single difference in the Biden administration and the Trump. The only thing is, Trump talked tough and really nasty about people or migrants. But he didn't deport as many. He wasn't doing this. He wasn't being as harsh, as cruel as it is Biden administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JENKINS: And as you look at these boats one last time, Neil, just coming and going, what's significant is, on the Mexican side of the banks over there -- this is obviously the Guatemalan side here, but on the Mexican bank, there are no immigration officials enforcing any sorts of customs or registering who's coming and going.
We have seen some National -- Mexican National Guard around for security, but not much. And no one's having trouble coming and going as they please -
- Neil.
CAVUTO: So, Mexico's doing nothing to thwart this?
JENKINS: That's right. There is no border enforcement stopping people from coming and going as they will.
And, of course, the significance is the Haitians at this moment, but, of course, those crossings still include folks from as far as Africa, as well as those from Central American countries, that Northern Triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, which has traditionally been the problem ever since.
As we get near the border here in Tecun Uman, the city in Guatemala, we're going to stay in the river and stay on the Mexican side as we work our way back. But, as you can see, nobody's bothering us from doing this all day long -- Neil.
CAVUTO: Incredible, Griff, almost as incredible as your maintaining your flawless balance on that raft all this time.
If that were me, I'd be in the water. Just amazing.
You know what else is amazing? Chuck Grassley, 88 years young. He's running for another Senate term. And I kept thinking to myself, everyone makes a big deal over Tom Brady. Tom Brady this. Tom Brady this. He's going to play until 50.
Grassley is twice his age -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, we live in a world where we're fascinated by people doing things at a certain age, when they're supposed to not be doing things at a certain age.
Now, you have heard a lot about that guy on the left, Tom Brady, remarkable football player, 44 years old. And he's still saying: I could play right until I'm 50.
Well, he'd have a record to beat when it comes to that other fellow on the right. I'm talking about Iowa's Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who just announced he's going to run for an eighth term at the young age of 88.
Senator, good to have you.
SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): Thank you.
CAVUTO: And congratulations.
GRASSLEY: Thank you.
CAVUTO: You could have just sort of sat back retired, take it easy. You decided not to. Why?
GRASSLEY: Well, I gave it a little more thought this time than I have past.
But family are important. My kids are important. Wife's important. But I heard so much from the people of Iowa at the state fair, my county meetings. I go to each one of the 99 counties every year for a Q&A with my constituents.
And then at the football games, tailgating, et cetera, et cetera, they -- I heard from Iowans: We need your common sense in Washington.
And you have heard me say Washington's an island surrounded by reality. And I'm kind of glad to bring the common sense of the Midwest back to Washington, D.C.
CAVUTO: Well, you have heard it from your opponents in the past Senator, when you were a much younger man at 82, or younger than that at 76, said, this guy is too old. You need young, fresh blood.
And you have beaten them back every time. The campaign against you right now is already going in that direction. So, what do you say to your doubters who say you're too old?
GRASSLEY: I heard the same thing in 2016, when I was 81 or 2, and here I am.
And so I'm saying to them, I heard that same thing six years ago, and here I am. I'm ready to go.
I get to the office at 6:00 in the morning. I -- in fact, this morning, I got there at four minutes to 6:00. We leave about 6:30. I run. I go to bed at 9:00, get up at 4:00, go two miles. This morning, I have to confess I only went a mile-and-a-half, because I got a booster shot yesterday, and I feel -- don't feel quite up to it.
But, anyway, that's my life. And I'm very vigorous and can handle the job.
And, besides, there's a lot of good bills that still have to be paid. I want to get down prescription drugs. I want to control the border. I want to do something about fair prices for cattle in Iowa for the farmers, things like that.
CAVUTO: No, I have no doubt.
When I have been in Washington, I have tried to keep up with you. And forget it. I couldn't do it. Of course, that's not a badge of honor, Senator. I'm not exactly, well, Tom Brady.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: But leaving that aside, when you first came to the Senate -- I was doing the rough math -- we didn't have a debt like this.
I think it might have been around $3 trillion to $5 trillion. And here we are staring down the tunnel at $30 trillion. And we're on the brink again, a possible shutdown again.
What do you think of all that?
GRASSLEY: In the first year of the Reagan administration, probably the first time I voted to increase the debt limit, it was -- the first time, it was $1 trillion.
CAVUTO: Wow.
GRASSLEY: And we should have started back there to do that.
Now, I have almost forgot your question. Could you restate it, please?
CAVUTO: Well, are you worried about that?
GRASSLEY: Oh, yes.
CAVUTO: In just your time here, under Republican presidents, Democratic presidents, Republican Congresses, Democratic Congresses...
GRASSLEY: Yes. Yes.
CAVUTO: ... the debt just explodes.
GRASSLEY: Yes, OK.
CAVUTO: It's going to explode again.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
CAVUTO: And nothing and no one is doing anything about it.
GRASSLEY: OK.
We Republicans in the United States are doing something about it. And we're following Democratic former Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers. In January and then again in April, he said, you're spending too much money. You're throwing gasoline on the fires of inflation. So, stop it.
And we agree with that. But we -- you know how high inflation is. And this additional money is just going to get us back to the 1970s on inflation. So that's why we're concerned about it by not backing this $6 trillion that this administration wants to put, add to the national debt, and things of that nature.
CAVUTO: Tomorrow, they want to vote on this infrastructure-only package.
Would you vote for that?
I mean, this is -- this is the issue right now for the House.
GRASSLEY: I...
CAVUTO: But would you vote for that?
GRASSLEY: Well, let's put it this way.
We're talk -- they're talking about adding some things other than just a continuing resolution to keep the government going.
CAVUTO: Right.
GRASSLEY: I want to -- I don't want to shut down the government.
But what's that extra stuff they're putting in? One thing that we're certain of, that we won the case on Monday, when we didn't let them put in the debt limit into the continuing resolution. And the reason we didn't do that is, all of this spending is just Democrat spending.
They don't even have Republicans at the table to negotiate with them. They want to go this direction. Republicans have taken care of -- through the debt limit of last year for what debt was accumulated in the Trump administration. We don't want this outrageous, irresponsible tax and spending that's in this bill.
And so that's how we're helping the issue you have. And maybe, with Manchin and Sinema -- and they say there's five or six other Democrats that just don't want to talk about it that may be glad that Manchin and Sinema are leading the halt to this drive on the part of Democrats to spend $6 trillion.
It seems to me that they ought to be applauded for that, and maybe they won't get the job done.
CAVUTO: Do you think the government's going to shut down, Senator?
GRASSLEY: No. No.
It costs money to shut the government down. It costs money to open the government up. Why would you do that? Now, we have done it in the past.
CAVUTO: Well, it's happened before. It's happened before, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Yes, as recently as 2011 and 2013, I believe.
CAVUTO: And, in that time, we had our debt downgraded in 2011, not so much because the government shut down, but because of the process.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
CAVUTO: Do you worry about that, real quickly, that we're going to lose...
GRASSLEY: Well...
CAVUTO: We're going to lose our financial respect?
GRASSLEY: If we increase the debt limit, the Democrats are going to have to do that, and they will do it.
They just don't want people to know this money they're spending. And then we won't shut the government down. We don't have to worry about the credit rating of the United States being affected.
CAVUTO: All right, we shall see what happens.
Chuck Grassley, stay young, going for an eighth term as the senator from Iowa.
Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All
materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not
be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You
may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from
copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox