tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business June 20, 2018 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT
-- liz: will you do it now? stuart: fascinating. liz: this is the problem that has been out there for decades. stuart: i think you will agree it's a good thing to keep families together. liz: i do. stuart: well-said. well-done. our time is up. but, neil, sir, it yours. neil: stuart, thank you very, very much. there is powwow going on in the white house. we're trying to keep pays what the president is telling lawmakers, whether a lot happens on immigration front. whether he will move on his own to take executive action t could be a executive memoranda or executive order. there is big legal distinctions. the president apparently will try to get ahead of this, because republicans fear they are getting swamped by this. blake burman with more. reporter: i had a white house official sort of pitch me on the argument how they think this debate over separating children from their parents at the southern border, in some cases, how the white house felt, at least this one person's opinion yesterday, that they could take this argument to the rest of the
country and sort of make their case, win their argument on the right side of the argument, hey, look, all we're doing is upholding and protecting the law. very clearly what we've seen today is, or we are believe, about to see, is some sort of acknowledgement from this administration at least for the moment they have to move past this and try to solve this issue for the moment because it's a political issue, as you mentioned, that is swamping this administration, swamping this presidency at least for the moment. headlines coming out from president trump right now he is going to take some sort of a measure to at least temporarily fix this, something preemptive on immigration, hopes is matched with legislation down the line he says, and acknowledges, which is the political reality eventually they will need democratic support for some long term fix. these comments, neil, are taking place right now as the president is meeting with lawmakers on the
zte issue, completely separate issue from immigration. as you know earlier this week it was members of the senate who pushed back firmly on the president and the administration's plans to go forward forward with a settlement on zte. a billion dollar settlement that would allow for management changes, compliance changes and greater oversight is the arguement from the administration. however there is a security issue with zte and huawei as you know as well, that the intelligence chiefs pushed back on earlier this year. that is the basis of many concerns up on capitol hill, republicans and democrats alike who do not feel the administration should go forward with share zte position. so they were able to attach it to the defense agreement that was voted on capitol hill, which now poses another headache for this presidency as you have republicans and democrats, especially republicans pushing back on their zte position.
so we're about to hear from the president we believe momentarily on zte but the issue of the moment which is immigration, what to do about separating children from their parents and long the southern border. neil? neil: thank you, my friend, thank you very, very much. we'll hear from senator chuck grassley is very critical of zte. and more the president shielding that company or let some of his republican colleagues think shielding that company. the president is apparently urging those senators who might be leaning one way or the other to give him time on this, not to come down hard and fast and sanction this chinese telecom concern which has been sanctioned in the past. that it is all part of a process the president says. again we'll get the read on that and the trade fight as well. we're down on the belief we're not out of the woods when it comes to trade back and forth. let's get the read from john layfield and christine
short, rich karlgaard from "forbes." begin with you, inwith you. a bit of stabilization today, a short-lived rally, if you think about it from our highs we've given up 350 points over the last roughly 24 hours on the idea this is escalating. do you think it is? >> i don't. i think the second round of $200 billion trade threats that trump issued a day or two ago is a bluff. i don't think this is the hill that he wants to die on. i think he wants to be seen as a winner. winner means having a good stock market and good economy. he will push it because he promised his base he would. the hill he will die on is immigration. neil: interesting. how do you see things, rich? >> i agree with rich. neil: does that worry you in and of itself you agree with rich. >> no, not at all.
>> it should. >> trump is using this as negotiating tactic. i don't think it will go through. tariffs are not good for either country. it will shave points off gdp for u.s. and china. trade benefits all global players. i don't think he will go through with this. with that being said, china certainly imports a lot less than us than they export. so they have fewer levers to pull as far as tariffs go. so they can't go tit-for-tat with us there. what you're seeing with the market, especially a fear with apple, a lot of suppliers that they would perhaps go for companies that operate heavily in the country, maybe with boycotts that would go against wto rules. however it seems to be a fear in the markets right now. neil: i hope she's right and rich is right, john, i have my doubts that the president wants to wash his hands of this. i think he actually relishes
this. he thinks he is in a position, he might very well be right of the advantage, that the chinese suffered more certainly in the markets than we have of this. the chinese have far more goods coming here than we have going there. so they have a lot more to risk. what do you make of that? >> i think that is what the president believes. when you talk about tariffs themselves, yes, christine is right. tit-for-tat, they can't go with us. we have 130 billion going their way, 500 billion coming ours. what they did with korea with the boycott, despite the wto against their rules. they got the sales in half. look at companies like general motors sell more cars in china than the united states, starbucks who will try to double their presence in china right now, to me that is the way they go after. they have $550 billion of goods and services in china right now. i think chairman xi is in a place where he can't blink. he has a lost props. he can't be seen backing down to
a western power. neil: we'll see how that sorts out. i want to switch gears on deals still alive and well in the united states, particularly disney's battle to take twenty-first century fox's assets or key assets. so far superior bid to comcast, i say so far. what do you make of it, rich, and where this is going? >> you know i don't follow that one as closely as some of you others do. obviously you guys would have an interest in it. i really hope the government keeps the hands-off position on this, because the next one to get regulation will be big tech and i think that would be a big mistake. neil: you know i'm just making a big aerial view, point on this. neil: christine, rich is right this, is my parent company getting all of this interest even though we're not involved, fox business, fox news assets, et cetera, but there is a bidding war going on, it is very clear with companies with wherewithal with stock or cash to make it happen.
there is frenetic act 5th in that regard that shows a lot of confidence in the underlying appeal for the deal or environment they make it. i wonder whether you make of that? whether we'll see more of this, what do you think? >> i think the environment is great for m&a right now. we have companies with more cash on their balance sheets than they have had in decades. they were already doing quite well. with tax reform they're doing even better. we would like to see them put that money to work, not just in share buybacks, which is copout way to spend your money but in acquisitions, cap-ex and r&d spending. i think we'll see a lot more. we're coming into q2 reports here. i expect to see a lot of s&p 500 companies, announcing new cap-ex plans or research and development spending there. has been a few tech companies came out that say we're open to acquisitions. i think the environment is certainly right to that. i know this was inspired last year, a lot of this media
attention, particularly came to twenty-first century fox assets, but john, do you think the tax cut changed everything? that companies have more with all to make this sort of thing happen? we're seeing in the first quarter where the numbers came in, likely see in the second quarter, third and fourth quarter against year ago comparisons when tax cuts were not in effect and that alone changed the environment for this sort of stuff? >> i don't they if that alone changed the environment but certainly it changed the environment. we talk about apple bringing back $200 billion and getting apple tv. this is all about netflix. i own disney for this particular reason. they're trying to compete with netflix. talking about apple bringing back 200 plus billion dollars? buy the nfl rights, you can do that repatriating money. i think that will happen. epl rights going online. this tax repatriation is a big part because they have use of
that money. neil: rich, your thoughts on all the tax money that is free flowing these days? >> well, that is a great benefit of the tax cut. i mean, and i'm all for share buybacks. maybe it is not the first thing that you would hope for but share buybacks lift up shares and tens of millions of people benefit by shares going up. neil: that is not very, very creative. i know they're allowed to do it. it has desired impact, but something like deals or expansions, that kind of thing, tend to get more attention when they happen, right? >> well sure, it is not the worst. the worst is government takes the money and squanders the money. sure i would like to talk about companies like apple and expanding share in the united states but a buyback is a consolation prize. neil: we're waiting to go back to the white house to hear from the president on so many developments. what he will do with zte, the
china telecom concern by the senate, dominated by republicans but they have a lot of democrats agreeing with them, want to go after the chinese concern yet again. the president is urging them not to do so. he is working on senators with whom he has a chance changing minds. similarly dealing on this immigration issue erupted to be a big, big question mark about republican advances that have been made this year. this is getting in the way of that. that the optics, as i say, certainly don't look good, grabbing kids from their parents. whatever the justification, the president is seemingly set to take some sort of executive action to stop it. get attention back on issues on things he thinks are winners for him and that is not. more after this.
with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. you finished preparing overhim for college.rs, in 24 hours, you'll send him off thinking you've done everything for his well-being. but meningitis b progresses quickly and can be fatal, sometimes within 24 hours. while meningitis b is uncommon, about 1 in 10 inedill die. like millions of others, your teen may not be vaccinated against meningitis b. meningitis b strikes quickly. be quick to talk to your teen's doctor about a meningitis b vaccine. a few problems actually. we've got aging roadways, aging power grids, ...aging everything. we also have the age-old problem of bias in the workplace. really... never heard of it. the question is... who's going to fix all of this? an actor? probably not. but you know who can solve it? business. because solving big problems is what business does best. so let's take on the wage gap, the opportunity gap, the achievement gap.
whatever the problem, business can help. and i know who can help them do it. well, it's a whole day's worth of love songs. 300 minutes of baby videos. or, it's a million chat messages. a gig goes a long way. that's why xfinity mobile lets you pay for data one gig at a time. and with millions of wifi hotspots include you'll pay less for data. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit a store today.
neil: all right, another detail, apparently the president means what he said about taking some sort of executive action matter separating kids from their parents along the border. images don't look good. there are back and forth what republicans can do and all this, the president decided to take the matter in his own hand, issuing executive order stopping that practice and hopefully tying it down the road to action on illegal immigration, but for now taking action to at least stop this right now. he will sign that off before he heads off, i think he is going
to minnesota, guys? duluth, which is in minnesota. all right. let's get read from texas republican congressman jodey arrington which cosponsored the goodlatte bill which addressed broader concerns. congressman, this does not do that, this at least deals with the issue of separating kid from their parents. what do you make of that? >> i don't think anybody wants to separate kids from their parents but the laws of the land are the laws of the land however flawed and broken. i think the president finally just enforcing the laws as they are highlights how broken they are and puts pressure on congress to actually do its job. if we pass one of these bills, we will fix that situation. i like the cruz legislation introduced recently. i think we can do both, keep families together. the only way we have done it in the past, the presidents have
done catch-and-release. we can build infrastructure woefully inadequate. more detention facilities. double down on judges to expedite the hearing process and let them work their way through that. if they're not here for good reason. if they don't meet whatever asylum test, then they go back to their country with their kids. i think we can do both. this law will get at that. cruz legislation is one that i will be supporting. neil: what is likelihood it would ever pass though? the goodlatte measure in particular is deemed to be a little conservative, a little tougher, wouldn't garner many democrats if any? the so-called middle ground measure, moderate measure that speaker paul ryan helped cobble together is equally kind of votes short. i'm wondering is there a strategy in place when maybe you guys are working, i think more to the senate that will be working in august, but is it, is that the idea when republicans are in town, democrats are not, you try to get it done then?
>> well, look, the alternative, the status quo is that we're going to have millions more illegal immigrants flood into this country. so, republicans have to step up lean into this and solve it. we have the majority in the house. it is simple majority. i don't think the goodlatte bill will be acceptable. i'm a cosponsor. i think it is the most conservative. the question can we get 218 on the moderate conservative compromise? i think we can, neil if we do one of two things. the president has to be definitive in his support, very public, you unwaivering in that. neil: i hadn't heard unwaivering on either. >> me neither. think that i is cause for concern. i think you're going to have members will not get out there until the president provides them cover. then the other issues, like, not having e-verify, not like eliminating chain migration all together, like we do in the goodlatte bill. then fixing the ag guest worker program, any one of those three
i think begins to tip the scales in favor of 218 in favor of getting it done. those are calculations leadership and our conference have to consider moving forward. neil: a lot of your colleagues are concerned, whatever getting in the weeds this is, it is hurting the republican agenda. the president will speak in about 30 seconds. that is big concern. you guys want to get off that. >> i came here to lead and solve problems and i think we as a republican unified leadership have to demonstrate that to the american people. and the other thing is, we don't get the border security. we don't get the border security around we don't get interior enforcement if we don't do something with you with daca. neil: president of the united states meeting with top republicans on variety of issues including immigration. >> we're meeting right now on on immigration and we are very strong at the border. we're very strong on security. we want security for our country. the republicans want security
and insist on security for our country and we will have that at the same time we have compassion. we want to keep families together. that is very important. i will be signing something in a little while that is going to do that. the people in this room want to do that. they're working on various pieces of legislation to get it done. but i'll be doing something that is somewhat preemptive but ultimately will be matched by legislation i'm sure. we're having a lot of problems with democrats. they don't want to street for anything. they don't care about lack of security. they would like open borders where anybody in the world can flow in including from the middle east, from anybody, anywhere, they can just flow into our country. tremendous problems with that. tremendous crime caused by that we're just not going to do it. i say because we're also busy, i mentioned to the congressman and the senators in the room, that we are going to cancel and
postpone tomorrow's congressional picnic. we have a congressional picnic tomorrow. i was just walking over to the oval office, i said, you know, doesn't feel right to have a picnic for congress when we're working doing something very important. we have many things that are important. we are talking about trade. we're talking about many, many things. but it didn't feel exactly right to me. so we will be officially postponing the congressional picnic for tomorrow. we'll make it another time when things are going extremely well. and they are going, for the country, extremely well. we have record-setting numbers in every way economically, but we want to solve this immigration problem which is going on for 40 years, more. it has been going on forever. we want to see if we can solve it. so we are canceling or postponing the congressional picnic tomorrow. would anybody in the room have any question or statement that you would like to make while the press is here? anybody? anybody?
>> mr. president. on issue of immigration, trade, and -- these are all areas where congress has a lot of authority under the constitution, you have the authority, the executive branch has authority under the constitution. i think that's why meetings like this are really important, bringing the leadership on both sides together because there are important issues. so appreciate that opportunity to let you see our views. hear our views on these issues where we share authority on important matters. thank you. >> we all very much have the same views. we want to keep families together. at the same time we have to be strong at the border, otherwise you will have millions of people coming up, not like thousands now, you will have millions of people flowing up and just overtaking the country. we're not letting that happen. so we have to be very strong on the border. but at the same time, we want to be very compassionate. yes, lamar. >> mr. president, president, thanks for having us. what dan said is really good, on
issues, trade, immigration, we have a partnership under the constitution. we have some authority, the president has some authority. we need to work together. i was thinking tomorrow when we look at president nixon's portrait in the white house we think he did the unexpected, he went it china because he could do that. he was in a position to do it. president reagan did the unexpected, he went to the berlin wall and moscow. when we were hear a year ago i suggested to you, immigration bedeviled us 40 years, you are the president who can help us solve immigration problem with your leadership. you may be able to do for immigration what nixon did for china and reagan did for the soviet union. a lot of us would like to work with you on that. >> thank you, lamar, very much. we need the democrats support because we need their votes, very simple. people say we have majority. well, we have a one majority in the senate. we need 60 unfortunately, we
don't go with the majority. we go with 60. some day somebody will explain why but that is the way it is. we need 60 votes. we have 51 votes at the most. so we need democrat votes in order to do it, otherwise you can't do it. tom, you were going to say something? >> i think it is very important we can protect our border. we can not allow a child be get ought of jail card and get in the u.s. a free ticket. but at the same time as you said, we all said, like to keep families together at border for orderly timely processing of adult as claim. if it is lawful, legitimate claim, if it is not they go back to their country. we are working for our hard-working border patrol agents to keep families together at border while we process the claims in the timely fashion. >> you bring up something. i have to say our border patrol agents and our i.c.e. agents done great job.
we're throwing by thousands, ms-13 coming into the country. we're liberating long island and other places we're throwing them out by the thousands. we need laws that don't allow them to come in. mac, you're very involved in this. >> mr. president, there are a number of issues we'll discuss today that touch on our country's national security. and certainly national, controlling who and what comes across our border is an element of national security as we do the compassionate thing with families. and i, look forward to working with you, to further strengthen our military. together we have turned around a declining situation. but, that's also part of what we need to do together, to lamar's point, we both have responsibilities. we can do more together. >> i will say with all of the numbers that you see, if we weren't strong on the border, you would have hundreds of thousands of people pouring through the border.
they would be pouring through. the country would not be the country anymore. lindsey? >> we've got a big massive mess that has been going on for decades. we're all going to fix it one day i hope. we have a specific problem that puts the country in a dilemma. your dilemma, president obama's dilemma. our dilemma. if the family shows up at the border and we let the family go into the country, say please come back for your hearing about 80% of the time the adults never show up for the hearing. i think most americans feel like that is bad. it will create a third wave of illegal immigration. i want to be fair to people that came here under the old system but i don't want to create incentives to create a third way. the other choice is, if you detain the parents who broke the law under the flores decision you have to break the family up. so there is 1997 supreme court case we have to deal with. so i with urge my democratic
friend to see if we find a way to keep families together, have a legislative fix of flores decision, to argue about other things later. mr. president, you're in a real bind. if you detain the adults, the law requires the children to be separated. if you let the adults into the country, they never show up. seems to me that we want to keep the family together and have the parents show up for their day in court, to senator schumer, i know there is a lot we don't agree on, but surely to goodness we can fix this court decision because the country is in a bad spot, not just you. >> lindsey, the dilemma is if you're weak, if you're weak, some people would like you to be, if you're really, really pathetically weak, the country will be overrun with millions of people. if you're strong, then you don't have any heart. that is a tough dilemma. perhaps i would rather be strong but that is a tough dilemma.
go ahead. >> in our community, homeland security we held 30 hearings on border security. you know how much i like data. senator graham mentioned the fact we have incentive. there is nothing to entice people to take a dangerous journey through the desert. we've seen pictures of desiccated bodies in the desert. here is what happened since 2012, daca, talk about unaccompanied children. prior to that, we somewhere 3 to 4,000 unaccompanied children from central america came into this country. then daca was instituted in 2012, the problem skyrocketed. the numbers are 225 million unaccompanied children from central america. about almost half a million family members. so we have another 750,000 individuals, very sympathetic, that we're just incentivized to coming. we have to stop those
incentives. the goal of our policy should be to reduce the flow of people instead of incentivizing to this country. that is what strong enforcement actually does. >> so everybody knows, this deal was just about done. we had a deal signed. president obama signed daca. when he signed it, he said i'm not really allowed to sign it, i will sign it anyway, he actually said i'm not allowed to sign it. never will hold up. they got a judge who held it up and another one held it up. we had a couple turned it down. it will be a supreme court issue. but, before it was held up, everyone assumed that the daca would not be held up. we had a deal with the democrats t was a deal everybody agreed to. $25 billion. we would build a wall, take care of many, many different things including loopholes. it was all done, except when this judge ruled in favor of daca, meaning that it could continue until we get to the supreme court, all of a sudden they weren't there anymore.
and that's what happened. why we're in this mess. because we had a couple of court decisions which is going to force an issue to the supreme court that shouldn't be forced to the supreme court. yes, john? >> thanks for inviting us up on these important issues and for having the support and discussion. certainly on immigration, but also on trade. the context that i want to make sure we talk about is, we have made incredible progress on tax relief. we made incredible progress on regulatory relief. it is reflected in our economy. now we can do the same thing on trade. think what that means for our country in terms of economic growth, in terms of jobs, in terms of getting wages moving higher and impact that has for all americans. so we have to look at it in that context. when we talk about trade, it is on top of tax relief, regulatory relief and now if we can get the right policies in place on trade, think what that means for our country.
>> we're doing very well on trade, i will say. we've been really hurt as a country on trade for many years despite bad trade deals. we're doing very well. we're making good trade deals. you will be seeing that. it will be announced pretty rapidly, we already have a couple that are made. we're making great trade deals. honestly, we need people coming into our country. we have a lot ofp cans coming into our country. -- lot of companies coming into our country. foxconn coming to into wisconsin. great company, they make apple iphones and laptops and unbelievable company. we need people that work for these companies because they are coming in at a number nobody ever thought possible. we want people to come into the country but i think he can speak for everybody at the table, we want them to come in based on merit. we want great people that will be great for our country. we want them to come in based on
merit. we need the people because we have so many companies coming into the country. john, you were going to say something? >> mr. president, to your point, that america is greatest country in the world when it comes to immigration, we need to draw the line between illegal immigration that threatens our country and public safety and legal immigration. what tom cotton has said, what you said, being able to enforce the law and keep families together. it is not a mutually exclusive choice. we can do both. i'm confident we will achieve that goal. i want to point out coming from a border state like mack and i do, the border, the legality along the border, as someone points out it is commodity agnostic. it is people, it's drugs, it's weapons. you talk about an opioid crisis in the united states, it is not just prescription drugs, it
heroin that comes from mexico. >> right. >> this is very complex situation. we need law and order along the border. everybody agrees with that. we need to be compassionate the way we handle families. it is important to in the larger context because of cartels and criminal organizations that benefit from this, they just making a lot of money and keeping this situation very dangerous for everybody involved. >> john, in many ways they're using the children and always using the children as a ticket. >> absolutely. >> for getting into the country. we have to remember that. there is a number of 12,000 children, 2,000 are with the parents and 10,000 came up with some really horrible people in some cases. you have the coyotes. you have the traffickers, human traffickers, but not only the drug traffickers but you have the human traffickers, they use children as passports to get into the country. it is very complex issue. it has been going on.
we shouldn't feel guilty, it has been going on many, many years, many, many decades. we'll solve that along with other problems we already solved. we're doing well solving problems. when i became president, we had north korea, we had the iran deal which was no good. we had lots of problems with trade and bad trade deals. there are a lot of things we solved and we're solving. that in theory i shouldn't have had to solve. these are things that should have been solved for a long time. even on trade, we should have never allowed our past leaders, should have never allowed china to get to a point where there is a 500 billion-dollar trade deficit with the united states. when they went up, we should have gone up. we should have gone up together. not where you allow one to get so far ahead. that includes the european union, many others. shouldn't have happened. so we came at a time there were plenty of problems to solve and one of the problems was
immigration. i hope not too long a distance, i mean beyond this one problem of immigration. you can mention the word comprehensive, or don't have to use it. a lot of politicians don't like the word comprehensive immigration reform but i think we have an opportunity to do the whole, the whole immigration picture. that is what i'm looking to do ultimately but right now we want to fix this problem. i think we'll be able to do that. does anybody else, dave, you want to say something? >> mr. president, the last year-and-a-half has shown absolute turn around in this economy. we were faced with eight years of 1.9% economic growth. we focused on as john said, regulation, energy, taxes. this year we put a dodd-frank bill, bipartisan bill, free up a couple trillion dollars. what this administration has done freed up $6 trillion to go back into the economy. this is real jobs. 3 1/2 million new jobs. the economy is moving. the rest of the world is paying attention. nato doubled investment
regarding military spending. new free-trade agreement with korea. i hope we focus on the priorities within the trade equation. to get equal access. not right when alibaba can do cloud computing in the u.s. and google can't do cloud computing in china. that is what this is all about. we reduced global poverty 2/3 in last who years. while poverty in the united states remained flat. that is not right. this is moving to change that. >> yes. >> i appreciate the fact that you call attention to what is really happening with the economy. due to two things, the tax bill and regulation. we were killing people with regulations but what has inbeen said around this table, and i'm surprised, the biggest accomplishment from your administration is what you have done with the military. we succeed ad president who had a policy you can't do anything with equestions operation with the military unless you do with
with non-defense. we had to vote for a lousy budget bill to do that but nonetheless. it is changed. we have broken parity. we are rebuilding military. >> the military is really incredible. we're ordering new planes, new ships, old jobs too. jobs i would say in this case is a far second. but we're going to have a military like we never had before. it is great. 700 billion approved. 716. in that budget, 6 billion for opioid. a lot of progress is being made. mike, did you have something to say, mike pence? >> thank you, mr. president. i know i speak for the president expressing gottude for members of the house that gathered around here. you delivered the for the american people on national security, rebuilding our military. on tax cuts, regulatory reform, restoring our economy but what the president reiterated again
yesterday, he has said every day when we sought this office, we have a crisis of illegal immigration as the president made clear we don't want families to be separated. we don't want children taken away from their parents but right now under the law and we sit with these lawmakers we only have two choices before us. number of one, don't prosecute people that come into the country illegally, and then prosecute them, under court cases and the law they have to be separated from their children. what i want to be clear about, we're calling on these lawmakers, mr. president, not just to solve this problem in a way that affirms our commitment to law and order and compassion which we can do, there are proposals in the senate, proposals in the house to do that, but the president's vision articulated in his state of the union address let's solve the whole problem. let's build a wall, let's close the loopholes, let's solve the problem for 1.8 million people brought in through this country
through no fault of their own and deal with law and order and compassion with this issue of family separation at our borders and i would say with great respect to members of the congress, as the how considers legislation tomorrow, the senate is considering legislation, the president has postponed the congressional picnic, we're calling on congress to act. roll our sleeves up, work the whole problem, let's end this crisis of illegal immigration. >> thank you very much. anybody else have everything to say because i think -- yes. >> thank you, mr. president. from the house perspective i want to say -- [inaudible]. you're my commander-in-chief, there is marked difference in the security and good feelings in the military. they understand we're investing in them again even though we're asking them to do a lot. secondly security plays a good role. that include border security and bill we'll bring up and hopefully pass in the house this week fully funds the border, takes care of all these issues. i hope the house can pass it.
i wish frankly democrats would join us. there is lot of stuff they like. it is 80% issue. unfortunately i think they like the politics of this better. we wish you didn't take secretary pompeo from the house. he did a great job. he is doing a great job. >> he is doing a great job. thank you very much, appreciate it. anybody over here? >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to echo particularly what representative thornberry and senator inhofe said. change in attitude and change in resources for the military. we have to make sure we don't have another cr for the military. we're working hard in the house. we're hopeful we'll pass defense appropriations bill next week in the house. and we need to make sure that gets taken up and passed in the senate. we don't give you another omnibus type bill. >> please, please. that would be very nice. >> passed and taken up that will be critically important to continue the work we've done rebuilding -- >> thank you.
say hello to your father, please. >> tell adam to shave. >> looks good. handsome guy. thank you all very much. we appreciate it. [shouting questions] >> we're looking to keep families together. it is very important. we'll be signing an executive order. we'll also count on congress obviously but we are signing an executive order in a little while we keep families together. but we still have to maintain toughness are our country will be overrun by people, by crime, by all of the things we don't stand for. that we don't want. i will be signing an executive order in a little while before i go to minnesota. but at the same time, i think you have to understand we're keeping families together but we have to keep our border strong. we will be overrun with crime and with people. that should not be in our country. [shouting questions] >> will you accept a stand-alone
bill addressing the separation issue? >> we'll see what happens. >> young children at the border. >> that affect everybody. those images affect everybody. but i have to say you have double standards. you have people that want absolute security and security and you have people that do look athe children and then you have people like me and i think most of the people in this room, that want both. we want the heart but we also want strong borders and we want no crime. we don't want crime in this country. we don't want people coming in. we don't want people coming in from the middle east through our border using children to get through the lines. we don't want that. we're doing too good of a job to allow that to happen. we'll not allow that to happen. thank you very much. [. [you shouting] >> this has been going on, what took long? this has been going on 50 years, longer. this has been going on under president obama and president bush. this has been going on for many, many years. we'll see if we can solve it.
this is not something that happened just now. you look at images from 2014. i was watching this morning and they were showing images from 2014. they blow away what we're looking at today. that was not during this. that was during the obama administration. i saw images that were horrible. you know the ones i'm talking about because i'm sure you all saw them too. we'll see if we can solve the immigration problem like we've solved so many other problems. and i think we'll get it done. thank you very much. [shouting questions] thank you all. >> let's go. let's go. we're done. [shouting questions] come on, let's go. we're done. neil: just heard the president of the united states a few minutes ago saying he will sign something on immigration, executive action, executive
order, that will halt the practice of separating parents from their kids but again this is a start, he says, towards something much more constructive down the road. much more long-lasting and substantive. we'll get the read from senator chuck grassley on that. trade issue, the volatility that we've been seeing in the markets and because of these developments here, right after this.
neil: if you're just joining us the president promising to take action before he leaves for duluth, minnesota, on this separation going on between kids and their parents at the border. this is something that iowa republican senator, chuck grassley had been urging. the senator runs of course many other thing the senate finance committee, the judiciary chairman there as well. you know. senator, the president is saying this is step but only a step. what do you make of it? >> from a humanitarian standpoint and since most senators have said they don't want parents separated from their children, and i'm in that camp, it is good from a humanitarian standpoint, but from the standpoint of certainty of law it's not enough. what we need, this need as
legislative solution and with a democrat bill and republican bill and with everybody feeling the humanitarian crisis, we ought to get together, and i hope that we can get together to have legislation and permanency that would basically overrule the flores decision of 1997 which basically says that you can't hold children if the parents are in detention for more than 20 days. that decision is what has forced this. and, we need legislation to override that. neil: now, you guy as republicans plan to be in session in august. democrats have not indicated whether they will be joining you. is that the time you think you will push this? >> no, that should be pushed right now. if the president hadn't made this decision to in a day or
two, we would accept to get the bill up that senator tillis is going to introduce today. and maybe we would not have gotten it out, attempt to get it out, bring about a bipartisan solution. there are discussions going on between republicans and democrats, and at this point i can't give you update on that. neil: jeff sessions apparently was the one who really looked at this, forced the immigration law here and to separate kid from their parents as a means by which, you could, you could stop this flood at the border. other republicans said it was a mistake to go that route. you indicated it is a mistake to go that route. you think for that he should resign? >> no. i think, you misinterpreted then if you heard me say something like that because jeff sessions just like chuck grassily, just
like 99 other senators taken an oath to uphold the law. when people come here for asylum, if they don't go through a port of entry, if they enter the country some other place, they're violating our law, and you can't encourage of violation of law. also you got to deal with the humanitarian aspects of people coming from central america. neil: no doubt. no one had done what he initiated. that is all i'm saying. it might be within the legal boundaries envisioned. no one pushed it. he did. some of your colleagues fear, i didn't mean to push word in your mouth, some have said he went too far, opened up a can of worms that took this entire issue away from republicans? >> okay. well, let's give all the that you said about that but extend it to the outcome, if he hadn't done what he did, you will encourage people to come to central america. dangerous way, kids lives put in
danger, trafficking into the united states through mexico. sex trafficking, gang activity, and all that. and then when people are released into the society, told to appear in court at certain date, 90% don't appear, they go into the shadows. by not encouraging, the humanitarian problems of people transiting mexico to come here. >> senator, on trade, something else the president mentioned. he says they're making great progress on the trade deals. i know of one, the south korean one, that is fairly limited in scope. but he is confident that he is makes progress on tough talk on trade and tariffs with the chinese, with our g7 partners, what have you. you expressed some concern that already in iowa, you said that farmers could be hurt tremendously by these escalating tariffs. are you against what he is doing? >> i'm very nervous about what
he is doing. if the president is successful, we will be better off and agriculture will be better off. but if he goes to the brink as most business people negotiate to the brink and if he goes over to the brink, then we know not only because of president trump, but because of the experience of carter, reagan and george w. bush, that when you have tariffs put ons the first to be retaliated against, is agriculture. that doesn't just affect the 5% of my people that are farmers. it ripples through the entire economy of the midwest. neil: so do you think that you and your colleagues should write off whatever the president proposes regarding tariffs? he is holding his ground on this, doesn't seem to take too kindly tock second-guessed on this. that goes all the way to dealing with zte, the chinese telecom concern with which you have had concerns of your own. >> yes. neil: what do you make of that? >> well, there don't forget
there is national security concerns and -- neil: he is against these stepped up sanctions. he is against the move that you and your colleagues are considering to go after zte. >> well, yeah, here is a place where it is very oious china is taking advantage of the united states. in a lot of other areas it is not so clear. this is very clear. and i don't know what is going to come out between the house and senate conference committee but, this is something that needs -- neil: he doesn't want it, senator. he is against it, any punitive measures there. you are against him pushing that, right? >> yes. neil: okay. the ig, if i could just go, you had kind of a scathing look at the ig report that came out earlier this week on hillary clinton, the whole e-mail stuff. you said justice needs to be blind. law enforcement need to ignore politics. the follow the facts. the inspector general's report and consequences must follow.
what did you mean by consequences must follow? >> it seems to me not only in this justice department and this fbi, but we've had it in prosecutors going back at least to the stevens case, who knows where else, there is a lot of people that have done wrong still on the payroll. so i take the view, if people had done something wrong and they aren't fired if heads don't roll, nothing changes. it encourages a culture of violating the rules of employment, speaking to the press or not, speaking to the press. leaking or not leaking, all that sort of stuff. and i think that that's steps that need to be taken. the bottom line though of our three hours with the inspector general leads me to the conclusion that hillary clinton was treated with kid gloves whereas brass knuckles are being used against trump now in a similar situation. neil: so when the president says this report exonerates him, do
you think it exonerates him? >> i don't think you can say he is exonerated -- well, first of all, let me make clear, i don't think that the, the mueller hearings and investigations have shown any collusion. i agree with the president on that. but you are not going to know until the final plug is pulled on the mull per investigation. neil: senator, thank you for taking the time. always good seeing you. >> good to see you too. good-bye. neil: senator chuck grassley from washington. we'll have more after this. dow up 10 points. . how do you win at business?
pilot plant aims to produce lithium-carbonate one hundred times faster than from conventional lithium brine. mgx minerals running a small business is demanding. and that's why small business owners need more. like internet that's up to the challenge. the gig-speed network from comcast business gives you more. with speeds up to 20 times faster than the average. that means powering more devices, more video conferencing, and more downloads in seconds, not minutes. get fast internet and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more per month. comcast is building america's largest gig-speed network to give small businesses more. call 1-800-501-6000 today. my secret visitors. hallucinations and delusions. the unknown parts of living with parkinson's. what plots they unfold, but only in my mind. over 50% of people with parkinson's will experience hallucinations or delusions during the course of their disease. if your loved one is experiencing these symptoms, talk to your parkinson's specialist.
. >> we should have never allowed our past leaders should have never allowed china to get to a point where there's a $500 billion trade deficit with the united states. when they went up, we should have gone up. we should have gone up together. we allowed them to get so far ahead. it includes the european union and many others. shouldn't have happened. neil: that does not sound like a president that is bending. the dow today up about 8.75 points here. the very issues that were under pressure here, and tend to succumb to the notion that a trade war could be in the offing or some trade friction remained. the same issues not as bad as yesterday when we lost about 300 points. what is the president saying?
first to what the president is saying and effect on the markets, "wall street journal" associate editor joe bussey, market watcher and fox business' deirdre bolton. joe, to you and your sense of what you're seeing from the president that, i'm not blinking on this, i'm not giving ground on, this it's up to the chinese. and he seems to believe he's coming from a position of strength, and that it's going to go his way. what's your sense of this? >> i think these are negotiation tactics. i'd rather focus on what areas is going to help if there are tariffs. specifically as a market watcher, seeing it in small caps and the russell 2000. neil: they are not as vulnerable. >> domestic companies are not as vulnerable to tariff talk. number two, accelerated earnings not affected by the strong dollar and the benefit of the corporate tax cuts which will take a few quarters to kick in, you will see it in the strength of the russell 2000 versus the case of the s&p if
the tariffs go through. neil: there is a weird, consistent pattern to this, isn't there, deirdre, the markets look like they're upping the ante, they tank. it's a short-lived tank. not sure what it will be in three hours here. one day it hit, sometimes two days, the asian markets play out the same, more magnified. what do you make of that? the markets trust cooler heads prevail or think the president is right or what? >> i do think i'm going to agree with joe. that's certainly what we heard from lloyd blankfein and goldman sachs, all of the muscle is part of the negotiation tactic. compared what happened with trade to north korea with president trump saying it's a lot of bluster. it's part of his process. neil: it wasn't endorseing. >> he was not endorsing. neil: it's part of the process. >> he seems to be a little more philosophical, david solomon also of goldman saying it's
fine, at some point, the trade tensions affect clients both in china and the u.s. they affect investments, and so at some point there will be a longer term effect, but for the moment, a lot of these cooler heads think we're not there yet and seem to accept this is part of the process, but that doesn't mean we're going to see the 300-point sell-offs in the dow when president trump instead of talking about $50 billion worth of tariffs talked about 200 billion. the markets sold off. >> and another 200 billion, john, if the chinese think about matching that 200 billion. but where do you see this going? >> fasten your seat belts. we're at beginning of this and the gauntlet tossed down. he's talking about 10% of 400 billion in chinese exports. neil: virtually the entire surplus, right? >> that's right. a little more than. so i think at the beginning of this, there are no talk going on. it's not as if there are talks
to solve these issues, you know, under way. there's positioning. like two sumo wrestlers at this point in the ring trying to get advantage on the next. that could have untold effects on markets. we just don't know yet. if china does in fact crimp back imports of whatever product you want to choose, agricultural or industrial, we don't know, that will be the producer. and we don't know the standpoint of decisions being made not just on tariffs. mind you, the president is listening to hard-liners the administration. peter navarro and others, june 30th the other issue that u.s. will announce rules in chinese technology in the chinese technology zone because we feel they are stealing our tech. neil: is there a sense that he is making progress in this regard.
i'm switching to europe and promise on the part of some of the german auto manufacturers to dramatically cut tariffs for american cars that come. in a number of hopes that go through approval in germany, approval through the european union, but they're already, i wouldn't say blinking but shifting. >> yeah, part of the negotiation deck. john may be right, this could be just the beginning, i always say it's not the news, it's the market's reaction to the news. there's a lot of headlines where there is a quick knee-jerk reaction. that's the markets for now telling you this may not be that big of a deal. at the end of the day, earnings and interest rates control the markets. interest rates are low and earnings are accelerateing. >> here's a reason it is, a slighter bigger deal with china as opposed to europe because in china what they want is systemic change in the manner in which china conducts itself in the international trading
department. lower subsidies or no subsidies from the government. not swiping through cyberespionage secrets. no force transfer of u.s. technology to as the ticket end of the game of china. those are big decisions they're asking of china. not just saying lower tariffs, they're saying change your economy. neil: they would be grateful if they got a fraction of that, don't you think? >> if you listen to peter navarro and others, they're saying it's been a long time coming and we're in this for the long game is their argument. you may be right. neil: battle through the end, it was tepid. >> very much so, very much so. very little out of south korea. neil: we are focusing on deals alive and well despite the uncertainty on trade in general. this hits close to home. the assets of twenty-first century fox, which are a convenient football to kick back and forth here. the question is who will ultimately have that? disney upping the ante to outbid comcast and back and
forth we go with indications comcast is going to follow with that. let's get the read from susan li and what's going on here as the deals are back in town, i guess? reporter: this morning we had the increased offer from disney up to $38 a share for twenty-first century fox assets, a combination of cash and stock. right now we have sources reliably telling us on fox business, comcast will be countering with a $41 a share bid. that could be in a combination of cash and stock according to one source, the other one tells us comcast has the highly confidential bank letters that says they can go all-cash in this transaction. the owners of twenty-first century fox probably prefers the tax deferment deal. we'll see about that. this morning we have disney, of course, on that conference call, that investor call trying to sell this bid to analysts and the markets alike. we had bob iger basically repeating the district court ruling in the at&t deal, saying
they're six months ahead in trying to get the regulatory hurtles cleared. twenty-first century fox canceled the july 10th shareholder vote whether or not to accept the bid to think about this more and get through some of the details. we don't have a date when shareholders will voting. we called twenty-first century fox, they haven't given a date, comcast will be counterbidding with $41 a share. consensus on the market, neil, go up to $50 at least for the winner of the fox assets. neil: which could explain why fox assets right now, twenty-first century fox's $48 a share, well above the richest price out there. deirdre, what do you make of it all? >> to susan's point, $41 from comcast, we're going to see that within the next 24 hours, maybe shorter. offer cash or a mix, they're going to reassure their own investors they have the money to do it, they're not going to
indebt themselves too much to do that. neil: wouldn't they have a lot of debt second only to at&t, right? >> that's going to be something they need to sell, and i think the larger picture here is they want sky very much, right? 23 million viewers. star india has something like 720 million viewers per month. star india a big crown jewel. i think it's basically these legacy media companies trying to figure out how do you compete with amazon, how do we compete with netflix. to susan's point, this is far from the last bid that we heard from. neil: joe, this started pre-tax cut, if you think about it. all the extra money sloshing around from the tax cuts, mighty tax cuts at that, change the dynamics here. make you more aggressive in bidding up the property or pursuing companies period. or are we going to see more of this activity, albeit delayed
because of this, because of this environment of low taxes, lower regulations. >> what i like about a lot of deals going through, i noticed a lot of them are mostly all-cash versus cash and stock showing confidence from executives doing all-cash deals and i like the point made by deirdre at end there, a lot of the media deals, it's due to netflix and amazon. that's one thing that is rarely mentioned, the at&t, time warner, all of the companies are threatened by the global growth that is just beginning to extend in netflix as they are revolutionizing television. they are threatened by the media streaming companies. neil: you know what's weird, john, counterintuitive for the potential acquirors, stocks to continue rising, even in the face of ponying up more dough. in the case of comcast and disney, i could certainly see it in the case of twenty-first century fox, but it is more often not the case. the potential acquirors jump as
well. >> joe's point. this is consolidation of an industry against competitors who have been stealing a lot of lunch off the table. neil: right. >> if you get delivery service plus content, you get a winning combination, that's what the market is telling you. and the other tailwind beside the tax cuts which have given companies a lot of cash is that the at&t-time warner deal went through. regulators said -- neil: nothing is happening about it. >> and the judge was so strong too, he didn't say don't waste my time, but pretty much that was the headline. >> don't waste my time. so the players in this have all been working on the regulatory picture right from the get go. so now they got a green light, and so the question is, after them, who's next? who's next to consolidate, to try to create enough competitions to deal with the netflix. neil: who's next to force the consolidation, susan li, you are reporting on this for a while, waiting to for, maybe if
ever, for the big guys, the apples and the amazons, skewing any interest in the more conventional properties, but what are you hearing? reporter: neil, can i point to the stock chart of comcast and disney and fox? as we're speaking, look at the spike in the chart as we're reporting what sources are telling us. >> go ahead. >> $41 possibly in cash and stock, possibly all cash transaction being backed by the banks. but as i mentioned to you, technology companies, they don't need the platform to back, they have the tendency to pay up for talent and make original content for their own platforms, fx or a nat geo, i don't thinhey need it, i don't think they want to spend $70 billion for old technology, old media in order to broaden out in the media space. neil: we said way, way back from the deals and whatever or whoever is next or targeted.
do you guys feel that the environment still looks sound? you hear about europe and some of the asian markets hiccupping that they've had their heyday, that the united states is still strong, and that that we're going to be still the center of the attention. do you buy that? >> i think if you look back, take a step back at the macropicture. earnings and interest rates drive the market. interest rates historically are still very low. like david tepper said wake me up when the 10-year gets to 4%. like earnings, when you look at the mega cap companies, earnings are just starting to accelerate. when you look at a nine year recovery. neil: this is not a rich market to you? >> i think it's upside. things are just starting to accelerate. if we've done 9% gdp for the next five years, if we accelerate, 3, 3.5%, the domino effect could be just beginning to accelerate.
neil: we'll watch it closely, guys. thank you all. we're down 5.75 points, all those involved in the media soap opera to get their hands on twenty-first century fox, they're all up from the acquiree or potential acquiree to those who want to gobble it up. it is rare but it's happening. more after this.
. >> we want to keep families together, it's very important, i'll be signing something in a little while that's going to do that, and the people in this room want to do that, and they're working on various pieces of legislation to get it done, but i'll be doing something that's somewhat preemptive but ultimately we'll be matched by legislation. neil: all right, so the president will do something about this separation of kids from their parents along the border here. what form it will ultimately take is anyone's guess. he's supposed to do so within the next hour before leaving for duluth, minnesota. as horrific as some of the images were, lindsey, if i can begin with you, a lot of this is concern among republicans that they got sidetracked on this thing and suddenly exploded across land just as they're making gains in the
economy, in the markets, and they want this off their back. will this do that? >> it very well might. people need to give donald trump very much credit for being smart politically. this wasn't about goading the democrats in the coming to the table. this is about getting what he wanted from the republicans, and we just saw from what he said he's going to sign something that is fairly preemptive and will be matched by legislationment he got exactly what he wanted, and i think as you pointed out when the republicans are really reaping in a lot of rewards, this was probably the best time to pull the trigger on that. it's terrible news, and if the good news can offset the bad, then so much the better. neil: where does all this go? a crisis that adds and discussing what the police at the border were treating illegals coming into this country. where does this go, lonnie?
assuming this goes worldwide and the pope commending on them, what do you think? >> i'm worried some of the images are forceful and difficult to leave this aside. the news cycle will move on once the policy resolves itself. what i fear is instead of coming back to images of a growing economy, images of the benefits of a tax reform, we're going to be talking about this image of immigration which frankly has never been one that republicans are entirely comfortable with. from an electoral perspective, to the raw politics of this, from an electoral perspective, i'm not sure this is the news flow we want going into the summer and the fall. i think we move on temporarily, but the images are also going to be things that republicans have to be ready to defend against. and frankly it's a very nuanced issue, not saying yes, let's separate them. the issue of border security is a tough one, that's what we're fundamentally dealing with.
neil: the president goes to say i don't get fair play, in the media i'm always evil, looking like the ogre, i'm paraphrasing here and referring to video playing on networks from 2014 to 2015 when barack obama was president when kids were coming to the border, they were glorified drug mills and incarcerating them then. so his argument was and republicans are saying even here there's different treatment depending on the president. i think it's kind of a moot point at this point, but going forward on this issue, what do republicans do? they want to craft together something, maybe they do it in the august recess where democratic colleagues in the senate will be home and they'll be in town, but what do you think? >> they better hop on it, and i think that republicans when it comes to the immigration issue as you pointed out, there's always this fear that they will be seen as discompassionate. democrats are ruled by, that
the fear of being seen as discompassionate can never be seen by the republicans. the republicans aren't afraid to make a hard stance but pushing legislation and dragging their . they need to take advantage of this, and the president is never afraid to take a bullet for the party or for his stances, but the party itself has got to show that want its to wind this up and wants to do it succinctly, as you pointed out, the images are terrifying, not only that, you need to remember, journalists have not gotten all the access they could get to the detention areas. the images will keep coming at us. >> i'm glad you brought up that, that is going to be an ongoing story. lhnee, i wonder what you make by what was started as jeff sessions, many are creating it didn't create the fear,
recusing himself but botching this? >> yeah, it does seem to me, neil, that some of this was predictable. it was predictable that the policy was going to play out in this way. i'm not talking about the notion there was a policy of separation, there's no policy of separation, the policy has to do with zero-tolerance enforcement policy at the border. should have thought about the second order. when you enforce that, this is what's going to happen, and i think the department of justice, i think folks there did fall down on this, and frankly i think for the attorney general, it is a problem, given the fact he's already under fire to a certain degree from what's going on with the russia probe. i put this not so much at the feet of the president as at the feet of the attorney general and the justice department. neil: wouldn't that be ironic, loses a job over this. watch it closely, guys, thank you very much. the dow up about 4 1/2 point. we'll see. the president is expected to sign, somewhere saying a
. >> welcome back to "cavuto: coast-to-coast." i'm nicole petallides on the floor of the new york stock exchange. a close look at general electric. it was once the most valuable company, and now will be removed from the dow jones industrial average and walgreens will be moving in. ge lower, walgreens higher by 5%. ge is one of the last of the originals when the index was created in 1896 and removal doesn't come as a surprise, deutsche bank analyst warned of this along with celebrating of the company. it's been a worst performer in 2017. ge was down 45% and in 2017, the dow gained 25%.
ge posted a $10 billion loss in the fourth quarter and cut dividends, cut jobs, cut costs and ceo john flannery in the midst of a complete turnaround and vowed to sell $20 billion in assets. the strength was aviation health care but weakens in the power units. electricity hurt the company and power markets such as gas and coal have softened. it is the lowest priced stock in the dow 30, which is a weighted average. on tuesday morning, take a look at the past changes. tuesday morning walgreens booths alliance, some of the most recent, apple, nike, goldman sachs and visa added since 2013. so, neil, on tuesday morning, we will say good-bye to good old ge, in the dow jones industrial average. nostalgia, yes, but for the shareholders who have lost a lot of money, they may be happy to see it go. back to you.
neil: 100 years ago, i remember covering it at the time. it was a big deal. nicole, thank you very much. it's a joke. why does everyone think i'm serious? tell us what it was like back then, grandpa. all right, usually you don't see republicans attacking, well, republicans with attack ads. >> making a comeback. starting to grow faster than we have in years. wages are going up. we have more job openings than people looking to fill them. american trade. free trade is essential to that prosperity. creating jobs. transforming lives. to keep growing, we must keep trading. tariffs are not the answer. neil: the koch brothers are behind that ad, big supporter of conservative causes and keeping the house safe for conservatives in general. going after the president and tariffs because the president is pushing this, while colleagues in his party are leery about them.
to national federation of businesses president juanita dugan. what do you make of that? it's unusual, but obtain clear message here is, look, this is something that could screw everything up, right? >> thank you for having me, neil. nfib is having 75th anniversary this week, and we have hundreds and hundreds of small business owners in town to talk to congress. we survey very often and asked them a series of questions about what problems and priorities are? and trade just doesn't register very high with a small business owner in our surveys. that's the case for a long time. what they do care about is the tax cut, small business optimism is the highest in 35 years, and they're here to tell congress they need the tax cuts to be permanent. they need certainty. neil: so tariffs and stuff like that, largely, i'm not saying your numbers are impervious or immune to this, but not
affected as big, big national conglomerates or firms that do business everywhere, right? >> that's don't talk much to us about it. when we asked 75 questions about business problems, trade pretty much comes in last. that's the way it's been for a few years now. historically mostly concerned with taxes, the cost of health care and regulations. and as i said, they're very happy about the association health plan announcement yesterday to give small business owners more choices and lower premiums for health care, and the tax bill has made the small business optimism index go through the roof. we have highest profits, highest compensation and highest readings of great time to expand. this is the strongest mainstream economy in 50 years. >> the president was proud of that and they, of course, were very pleased with him. i wonder if you don't mind
going back to the ad campaign that the koch brothers are funding, whether this is something that could eshg eventually hurt them, that if the price of goods go up in this country, taking to logical conclusion, governments don't pay those higher tariffs and taxes on goods. we do. members do, and it's going to be a problem, and you should be worried about it. members should be worried about it. you say what? >> well, if they do become worried about it, they're going to tell us. we do survey them. neil: you're the big cheese, are you worried about it? >> far more worried about making tax cuts permanent and giving certainty to small business members. we're very, very pleased with the regulatory rollback. the optimism index has everything to do with regulation and very excited we're going to have the opportunity to help our small business owners get better health insurance, better choices with lower costs. neil: all right, juanita duggan, thank you very much.
>> thank you, neil. >> i want to get karl rove's read on this. things are going well for americans, the improving economy, up until late for us, the strong markets and the wind was at their back and the images at the border and the kids separated from their parents, whether it was justified or not, fair or not and they say the picture is worth a thousand words? that was drowning out against the image us that saw. did that derail or stop or slow, whatever you want to call it, the republican train? after this. [ sigh ] not gonna happen.
huh? hold one moment please... [ snap ] the kohler walk-in bath features a low step-in at three inches. the bath fills and drains quickly. comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. call and ask about saving $1,000 on your walk-in bath. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home, with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred.
report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro.
where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. . >> do you express some concern that already in iowa, you said that farmers could be hurt tremendously by these escalating tariffs. are you against what he's doing? >> i'm very nervous about what he's doing.
if the president is successful, we will be better off, and agriculture will be better off. neil: all right, that was senator chuck grassley, he's at odds with the president's soft talk on trade and thinks it could boomerang to say nothing of the whole zte matter, also on immigration. the president is 0 for 3 on the crucial issues. former bush 43 chief of staff karl rove on what this is potentially portending if i can use those terms. what do you think? >> well, the president -- any president needs to make certain that he stays close to his allies and doesn't surprise them. and i think particularly for example on the chinese telecom company zte, the government sanctioned them for doing business with iran and north korea and the president without consulting with allies on capitol hill reversed himself and cut a sweet deal and that caused members of the senate and foreign relations committee to immediately take action to
reimpose the penalties. same on the tariffs, the administration has the authority but need to stay close to allies in congress, but if you don't and they surprise them, they will take action that they may not like. neil: i get the read, karl, you know how this works better than i do, the president is ruling by intimidation, it's my wayo the highway, don't try to challenge me on the zte thing, meeting with key senators to avoid that, trusting in the tariffs. i see to this, what good will come of this, don't start moaning about approving these tariffs or not, you know, and a lot of them are cowed by this. >> there are two issues on the tariffs that cause problems for the administration. one is what they're trying to do and the second is the approach. the question is what is the administration trying to do? does it is a the chinese treat us unfairly by stealing
intellectual property by forcing us into deals we shouldn't be forced into but nonetheless get stuck in? are the rules unfair? is the level of the playing field unlevel? that's one view of what our relationship is with china. free trade advocates would say we agree with that. administration seems to sound like, if you don't buy more from us week buy from you. chinese don't up purchases of american goods and services, that's a trade deal. the same could be said of the brits from us, they buy more from us than we of them. same with australia or singapore or colombia or chile, even the first issue. neil: it somewhat supports it. >> maybe, but, look, i'm less concerned about that than i am about the first issue of the chinese stealing our intellectual property. the administration in my opinion ought to be focused buy more soybeans and more on the
issue of trade-related investment measures and subsidies on state-owned enterprises and procurement rules that say if you want to sell to the chinese government do, so with a chinese partner, and we will have a private equity cap so you can't own 49% of a joint venture, you have to surrender our technology. i'm more concerned about those things than i am about trying to even up trade deficits. i got a deficit with my barber. she never buys anything from me. i go to the grocery store. i go to the dry cleaners, they never, ever paid me money, somehow or another it works out. neil: i see where you're going with that. we're getting few details on the executive order and indeed it is an order, so not a memoranda on what the president wants to do to stop this separating of children and their parents along the border. president's order will say
immigrant families who illegally cross the border will be detained together and not be separated from their children. the executive order will not end zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration per administration official, what do you make of that? i think part of it seems to be stop all of the images that the devil in the administration and the republicans and just to move on? >> yeah, look, once again, steven miller, behind the fiasco the first week of the administration appears to once again messed it up. look, under the bush administration, we had to build a giant facility in taylor, texas called the family huddle detention center, otm's, other than mexicans we could hold them together until we could process them out of the country. the trump administration decided to impose a policy called zero tolerance.
you're an otm, family from guatemala, honduras or nicaragua. you can remove the family civilly, that is to say you can say you're here wrongfully, you don't have the right papers, returning you home or sanction them in the criminal system which is what this administration decided to do. when you enter somebody into the criminal system, you have to separate. when you're charged with a misdemeanor as in this case, we don't take your family to jail with you. they have been separating them in order to sanction those people, send them home and if they come back a second time, they then get a felony and can never apply for u.s. citizenship. every previous president treated otm's, by and large, using the civil removal process. this administration decided it was going to sanction them criminally and that's what caused this problem. neil: you know, when i have you on, karl, much as i love you for your brains and your
expertise and historic perspective, a lot of viewers think you're a never-trumper and say worse about me, so when you're on and i'm talking to you, like one such e-mail says leave it to a never-trumper to talk to a never-trumper who has always been a never trumper and hates anything having to do with trump. it makes fat, foolish cavuto look like a fat, foolish fool. you can't be a fat, foolish fool, leaving that aside does, that bug you when you hear that stuff? >> they're not paying attention on. march 23rd, the trump administration filed an action in the wto against china on all these intellectual property issues. if they were pursuing that angle, i've already been cheering for them on it. i defended the president when i think he's right, and my job is to call balls and strikes, in this situation, the administration made a deliberate decision, they could have easily said we want to step up, and i understand where you're coming from, not good for our country and not good
for these families for them to pay a coyote several thousand dollar and make this long and dangerous journey to our country expecting they're going to be let in. we do need to send a signal to the countries, we know you're in tough shape, but don't come. take that the wrong way. neil: i think they do hurt your feelings and they make you feel vulnerable. >> no, they don't. they shouldn't hurt your feelings, neil. you're bigger than that. neil: that's what they're saying! i think that's what they're saying. karl, thank you very much, i'm kidding with you. a fine mind, karl rove, we hear from all sides here andall them as we see them. just because you called someone out on something doesn't mean you're never them just as much as you are always them. i don't know. more after this. we started making wine
in 1948... [sfx: bottle sounds on conveyor] one bottle at a time. today, we produce nearly 20 million cases a year. chubb has helped us grow for the past 30 years... they helped us prevent equipment problems during harvest and provided guidance when we started exporting internationally. now we're working with them on cybersecurity. my grandfather taught me to make a wine that over delivers. chubb, over delivers. that over delivers. you finished preparing overhim for college.rs, in 24 hours, you'll send him off thinking you've done everything for his well-being. but meningitis b progresses quickly and can be fatal, sometimes within 24 hours.
. neil: all right, i don't know what this means, but curiouser and curiouser when it comes to apple and getting into programming and the big oprah deal, she's going to make shows for them, and now a word that sesame workshop is going to create new children's tv shows for apple. is this greasing the skids for something or the digital tape as it were? i have no idea. thought i'd pass it along, apple is up on the news. in the meantime, donald trump
at a rally in minnesota tonight. that is not all that far from canada. i don't know if connell mcshane can see that from his front porch, but i imagine he's aware what's going on there. connell, what's happening? >> i see where you're going with that, neil, absolutely not far, and that tells you what type of issues might be talked about or cared about in this part of the world, neil. i know that the president's day in washington has been tied up mostly we talk about immigration, but i'm telling you trade is going to be the topic of the day once he arrives here in duluth. the port of duluth behind me where they do trading business with steel and coal and grain products and kelsey johnson kind enough to join us live on the fox business network, the president of the iron mining association of minnesota. kelsey, thank you so much for coming on. >> thank you so much for having me. >> we talked to people who have questions about the president's tariff policy. tell us about it. >> as you know, iron is the
major ingredient in steel. in 2015 we had a significant economic downturn due to high levels of imported steel, and unfortunately that affected our iron mines in northeastern minnesota. we produce 85% of the iron for the domestic steel. so it's pretty incredible. reporter: quick, neil was talking about this earlier in the show. the tit-for-tat, back and forth on tariffs, the europeans respond, canadians the same. do you worry things might get out of control a bit? >> i'm hopeful cooler heads will prevail and supportive of the president's effort, he's been fantastic on our issue, this changed to the dynamic and economy in northeastern minnesota, we're very supportive. reporter: kelsey, thank you very much. she'll have a chance to pass the message directly to the president. right before the rally that is held at the reasona over my shoulder, he's going to meet with people like kelsey from the mining industry and talk about his tariffs. when we were in iowa talking to farmers, much different reaction than you get here in
this area where as kelsey outlined, decent amount of support for the president's trade policy. neil: thank you, my friend, be well, say hello to the president when he's there. connell mcshane. we've got the trade issues back and forth. a new auto plant, a volvo plant is opening in south carolina. jeff flock is there. it's not all contempt and enmity, is it? reporter: you know, president's got to be happy about this. this is a volvo plant planned long before the president was a twinkle in the eye of the american voter. take a look, not seeing a lot of people but 4,000 jobs created here, and why? to built, that's robotics that you see, they put the doors on the vehicle by the way, let's show you the vehicle unveiled today. the one they'll build at this plant. the volvo s60, a sedan, and volvo now joins multiple other foreign automakers that make
cars here in the u.s. a lot of them already do, and the curious thing about this one, though, this is the only place the s60 is made. that means they will ship them from here, everywhere in the world, like to china, make them in the u.s., ship them to china and one other interesting place. listen. >> this area, the suppliers have a great port, that is important for us week export cars. reporter: you are going to make them in the u.s. and export them overseas to where? >> all over the world. reporter: not to sweden. >> to sweden too. reporter: you will export cars from the u.s. to sweden. why does it make sense? >> that's the strategy with our cycle plan. we're a global company, and global we are global. reporter: it shows, neil, i think, just how interrelated globally interrelated the auto industry is these days. by the way, i'm going to show you interesting numbers, if you look at cars in the u.s., about 17 million last year, about
7 1/2 million were made by american automakers. gm, ford, fiat chrysler. the remaining 9 1/2 million made by foreign automakers, but many of those made in this country, which is kind of interesting, and i give a shoutout to toyota, talk about cars made here. toyota makes nine different models here in the u.s. already, this is long before anything, and i tell you to a man and woman in the u.s. auto industry, they're all worried about a trade war that could harm this interrelatedness of the world auto industry, which is important to everybody, and they point out here at volvo, a tariff is a tax. it gets passed on. they would like to have no tariffs on anything, and then people would have cheaper cars. >> you are right. you and i pay that. governments don't pay, it volvo is not paying it. we do. reporter: exactly. neil: all right, you're the best, buddy. reporter: these guys would be for not paying it.
neil: i appreciate that. jeff flock. just a reminder, we get the government is going to do this, whatever the justification for it, ultimately, you and i pay. if you're for that, great, but open up your wallet. after this. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.
add-on advantage. used for batteries frome teexpired oil wells. mgx's new - pilot plant aims to produce lithium-carbonate one hundred you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later.
that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you.
call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪ some cash back cards send you to get to your bonus cash back. first they make you sign up for bonus cash back and it's only on a few categories. and when those categories change, you gotta sign up again. when does it end?! with the capital one quicksilver® card, you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. it's like a cash back oasis. what's in your wallet? neil: all right, two quick things here. the president is expected any minute to sign that executive order that will end the separation of kids from their parents along the border. secondly we're still waiting to hear from the chinese on this on
going tit-for-tat the administration promised at the followed up on $50 billion response to tariffs, that he was upping it to 200 billion. if they do the same, another 200 million. they are not so far responding to the 200 million. hope springs eternal. trish reagan. trish: president trump says he will sign an executive order to prevent families from being separated at border. white house gross more confident that the terror threats will force beijing to back down on trade. i'm trish regan. welcome to everyone, what could turn out an extremely important hour of the day right here on "the intelligence report. ♪ trish: intensifying trade dispute is gaining bipartisan