CBO warns $15 minimum wage would cost US nearly 1.4 million jobs

close

Video

CBO warns $15 minimum wage would cost US nearly 1.4 million jobs

FOX News correspondent Hillary Vaughn joins 'Your World' with details on the potential economic fallout

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto" February 8, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  If the minimum wage is hiked, will jobs
take a hike?

The Congressional Budget Office issuing its report today, the CBO warning
that, if the minimum wage is hiked to $15 an hour, it would kiss 1.4
million jobs goodbye and that the federal deficit would skyrocket. The
report also stating that it would lift 900,000 out of poverty.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders saying today Democrats are
ready to pass it without any GOP support, if necessary. But is it time to
put the push on ice?

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is YOUR
WORLD.

To Hillary Vaughn with the very latest -- Hillary

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Hi, Charles.

Well, President Biden's promise to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour
might be slightly delayed. And now he may have a hard time getting moderate
Democrats to back that, after the Congressional Budget Office is out with a
new report today that shows that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour
would put more people out of a job than those it would help pull out of
poverty.

The CBO says 1.4 million would lose their job from it. Only 900,000 would
be lifted out of poverty because of it. It would also add another $54
billion to the deficit over 10 years. So, some Senate Republicans say it's
going to make stuff more expensive for consumers. It would also hurt people
they are trying to help.

Senator Chuck Grassley tweeting this: "Including this harmful policy in
COVID relief bill would devastate same biz people already hurt by the
pandemic."

But others, like Senator Bernie Sanders, are not letting that news burst
their bubble. Sanders says they should do it anyway and says the news from
the CBO proves his point that they could pass it through budget
reconciliation with no Republican support and just 51 votes, saying this
today: "The good news is that from a Byrd Rule perspective, the CBO has
demonstrated that increasing the minimum wage would have a direct and
substantial impact on the federal budget. What that means is, we can
clearly raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour under the rules of
reconciliation."

On Friday, Biden threw cold water on the idea that the minimum wage hike
would be included in the stimulus package. And, today, White House Press
Secretary Jen Psaki would not say what they would do if they couldn't get
it through Bernie Sanders' way -- Charles.

PAYNE:  Hillary, thank you very much.

Now, with the economy already reeling from the pandemic, is this any time
to be hiking the minimum wage and risk the loss of at least 1.4 million
jobs?

With us now, Republican strategist Alexandra Wilkes, Democratic strategist
Jason Nichols, and market watcher Gary B. Smith.

Alexandra, let me start with you.

It's one heck of a tradeoff. How do you see it?

ALEXANDRA WILKES, GOP STRATEGIST:  Look, I think that this is such a slap
in the face to small businesses through proposing a minimum wage hike at
this time.

As you mentioned, in July of 2019, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office estimated that this would result in the loss of 1.3 million jobs.
Now, in a post-pandemic era, businesses are suffering more than ever, and
all of us can see it in our general lives, when we see the increasing
automation and the services that we use.

Businesses are already trending in this direction. And a $15 minimum wage
hike is only going to push them over the edge.

PAYNE:  Yes, of course, Jason, that was in 2019 version; 1.3 million was on
the low end, the high end at 3.7 million. I haven't had a chance to go
through the entire CBO report today.

But there's obviously some tradeoffs, And, to Alexandra's point, I don't
know. They didn't even talk too much about the small businesses and places
where it's obvious they couldn't afford it.

So, is this a time to sort of try to change the rules of reconciliation and
to force this down the throats of small businesses?

JASON NICHOLS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  Well, I think that we're looking at
this the wrong way.

First of all, if the minimum wage had grown at the same level as American
productivity, it would be $19.33, $19.33. Raising the minimum wage would
raise pay for 32 million Americans; 31 percent of African Americans would
get a wage increase. And it would benefit the economy as a whole, as more
people would have more money to spend.

So, I think that, when we look at that job loss, and your previous guests
just mentioned automation, automation is just driven by technology. That's
not going to be driven by this. And we look at the results in Seattle. They
have not caused this massive job loss that people are predicting.

Economists are not necessarily all on the same page. But I think that just
choosing this one study, when there are many other studies by the Economic
Policy Institute and other organizations that say that this will be
positive for our economy as a whole, I think is something that we should
look at.

PAYNE:  Although Seattle, home to some pretty large corporations, probably
can handle it.

Gary B., I'm not so sure, though, Birmingham can handle it. I'm not so sure
Jackson, Mississippi, can handle it. And there are small businesses
throughout the country, even in prosperous cities, who probably couldn't
handle it. Your thoughts?

GARY B. SMITH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Yes, exactly.

Let's take the case of some city in the middle of the country, Des Moines,
for example. The typical case would be, if they have a restaurant, Charles,
with, say, 10 on the waitstaff, the choice comes down to this. The manager
has to walk out and they go, OK, well, you six are now going to make 20
percent more.

You other four are now going to make zero. That's what it comes down to.
And as far as automation, look, I have even seen it here in Jacksonville,
which is relatively low cost of living, for the local Publix and amongst
other supermarkets. They are adding automation. They're replacing cashiers,
checkout people.

And now it's self-checkout. Look, businesses will adapt. This is not some
money that, oh, Daddy Warbucks will just keep paying up. Businesses adapt.
They add automation, or what they don't do is, they don't expand. They
don't say, instead of the second Mamma Mia's Pizzeria, I'm just going to
stick with the one, because I couldn't afford the waitstaff for two.

PAYNE:  Right.

Jason, here's the thing. Often, households that have one person earning
minimum wage may actually have two or three. And my concern is, if you have
two people making $10 an hour, and that's $20 an hour, then the wages go up
to $15, and one of those people lose a job, that household actually has
lost income.

Why isn't the focus on going further, far beyond minimum wage? Why isn't
the focus on, hey, this is the land of opportunity, where we import people
from other countries to take six-figure jobs? Why isn't the Democratic
focus on that element, as opposed as always being so focused on the
minimum?

The poverty line is $12,000. Can we aim higher?

NICHOLS:  Well, I think the focus should be on the people who are most
needy and most desperate, the people who, by the way, you and I end up
paying for with social services.

So, I think one of the things that the Democratic Party wants to do is have
a rising tide that lifts more boats. That includes people in the middle,
but that also includes people at the bottom. And as I have said with --
another one of your guests mentioned automation. I think automation is
coming.

There's no way to avoid that. That's capitalism and technology. That is not
rising the minimum wage. As we have seen, the minimum wage is still $7,50
nationwide, and we're still getting their people replaced at the local
grocery store with machines.

So, I don't think that that's what's driving this.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE:  Alexandra, on Friday, Joe Biden said that he would not try to force
us into this whole reconciliation thing.

Already, they have got something of a mess on their hands. So I'm not sure
-- listen, we know that the progressives are trying to force his hand.
Whether this comes up or not, what would the Republican side be? What do
you say to people who are struggling at that level in terms of them being
able to just grab themselves by the bootstraps?

WILKES:  Look, I think what the Republicans are saying is that we need to
open up, we need to get our schools open, we need to get our businesses
open. This is going to be the best way to rev up the economy.

And I think that what Joe Biden is running into here is the -- sort of the
fanciful campaigning running up against the realities of governing. It's
hard. Not everything can be done by fiat with an executive order and the
stroke of a pen.

And in this case, when the going got tough, he seems to have just abandoned
his plan, I think showcasing the weakness of the Democrats' argument here.
They know that this that this strategy doesn't work across 50 states. They
know that this would be a damper on the economy.

And I think that it's another example of where Joe Biden is going to face
problems from the progressive wing of his party.

PAYNE:  All right, I want to take -- sort of shifts gears a little bit,
folks, take a corner -- look at the corner of Wall and Broad, another
record start to the week.

In fact, we close at the highs of the session, Dow, Nasdaq, and the S&P
500, in fact, all closing an all-time highs, boosted in part by hopes of an
economic recovery as we get rid of these COVID lockdowns, to Alexandra's
point. Also, oil, those prices rising to the highest level in a year.

Now, next question is, should teachers move to the front of the vaccination
line? This is highly controversial, and a group of Georgia teachers are now
demanding it. So, why is the state's Republican governor denying it?

Well, Brian Kemp is here.

And, later, it's not just Republicans ripping President Biden's move to
kill the Keystone pipeline. Find out what this big labor boss is saying and
why Mike Rowe says he's right. Mike Rowe is coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NIAID DIRECTOR:  You can have children going back to
school as we have had in the past without necessarily having everyone
vaccinated, all the teachers or all the students vaccinated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE:  Dr. Anthony Fauci telling Neil those kids can get back to school
without everyone being vaccinated.

This as a bitter fight between states and teachers union rages on and a
White House waits for official CDC guidance on safe reopenings later this
week.

We will get reaction from Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp in a moment, but
first to Kristina Partsinevelos on this ongoing national drama -- Kristina.

KRISTINA PARTSINEVELOS, FOX NEWS BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT:  Charles, you have
school closures across the country and a lack of in person learning that
has become -- quote -- "a national emergency," according to President Biden
in an interview yesterday before the Super Bowl. But the problem that we're
seeing across the country is that it varies so widely in regards to how
schools are reopening.

Take, for example, this map that we have. We can see that there's four
states right now that have mandatory school reopenings. Then you have got
six states that have partial closure orders, and then the rest of the
states are leaving it up to the local districts to decide on the reopening
process.

And the nation's most powerful teachers union leader told The New York
Times that teachers need more money and more time, saying -- quote -- "I'm
confident that we will overcome the fear, but it's not going to happen in
two-and-a-half nanoseconds."

And this statement comes even though the Biden administration did make a
promise to reopen schools within 100 days of his term. But we know that
process is a little bit tough.

In Chicago, for example, the teachers union did agreed to a tentative
agreement to reopen schools, but K-8 students will not return until at
least early March.

Then you have, in Philadelphia, the local district over there threatened
not to reenter schools this week. Here in New York, Mayor de Blasio did
make a big statement that middle schools could reopen on February 25, an
important step for over 60,000 city students.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL DE BLASIO (D), MAYOR OF NEW YORK:  Our kids really benefit
emotionally, intellectually, and even in terms of their physical health,
getting out to school, being in the school community, being somewhere where
there's caring adults who can help them out in so many ways.

And a lot of kids have not done well with the isolation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARTSINEVELOS:  That plan, though, is for middle schools. There's still no
plan yet for high school student students here in New York.

And so that means there are a lot of children and students left in limbo.
One nonprofit study from October said that roughly three million students
may not be receiving a formal education, which means either virtually or in
person.

So, as students fall behind, the renewed urgency continues to improve the
state of education here in the United States and get students back to
classes safely -- Charles.

PAYNE:  Kristina, thank you very much.

Meantime, the Atlanta Board of Education requesting teachers be moved to
the front of the vaccination line.

But the state's Republican governor is saying, while teachers are a
priority, for now, they will have to wait. How come?

Well, Brian Kemp joins us now with the answer.

Governor, thanks for joining us.

Just what is the answer? And, apparently, obviously, you must have stated
it before, but for the audience who are not aware of this, it's a major
donnybrook in your state. What are you telling these teachers?

GOV. BRIAN KEMP (R-GA):  Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you about
a major donnybrook in the state.

I mean, look, we'd love to be vaccinating teachers right now. We need more
supply from the federal government. We're thankful for the little bit of
good news we got over the last seven days to get some more vaccine.

But we have two million seniors that -- and first responders and other
folks that meet the current qualifications here in Georgia, so we still
have a long way to go to get those vaccinated. Obviously, if there's 65-
year-old individuals that are in our school systems, they're eligible to
get vaccinating -- vaccinated now.

And we'd love to do teachers. But we're really following the data and the
science and trying to protect the most vulnerable to the virus. And that's
what Dr. Toomey...

PAYNE:  Right.

KEMP:  That's the advice that she's given me as well.

PAYNE:  Well, with all due respect, I see that's what you call phase one 1-
A+, the two million folks; 1.3 million are seniors. But the teachers are
saying, hey, we're nervous, we're very anxious.

And there is a big fuss, particularly after this apparent raid in Elbert
County, where 470 shots were confiscated from a medical center that had
been giving them out to teachers. So, there's something going on in your
state with respect to the teachers.

Why -- why don't you believe they are accepting in your answer to why they
have to wait in line?

KEMP:  Well, there's certainly something going on in Georgia, Charles.

We have had teachers and students in person in the classroom since August
and the first part of September in all parts of our state. So, the data
says that that's a safe place to be if you do it the right way. We have
supported our schools in doing that. We have given out 8.3 million pieces
of PPE.

We have given out cleaning supplies and other things to help our schools
safely reopen. But we left it up to them, complete local control. So,
there's a lot of teachers that have been in the classroom for months and
months now. Much like we did our reopening plan in Georgia, we followed the
guidance, we followed the data.

PAYNE:  Right.

KEMP:  We put in good regulations to be able to do that. And it's worked
for our economy and it's working for our schools.

PAYNE:  What about the caregivers for the elderly? Where do they fall in?
Are they in this 1-A or the 1-B part of this program?

KEMP:  Well, certainly, the caregivers in nursing homes, skilled nursing
facilities, long-term care facilities and other places, they're being taken
care of through Operation Warp Speed.

It is a little bit disappointing...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE:  Yes, I'm just saying, I'm taking care of my grandmother. Someone's
taking care of their grandmother. What does that -- where do they fall in
the process?

KEMP:  Well, caregivers and those are eligible in that process.

Look, we want to expand. I would love to do that now. But we have got to
have more vaccine to do that. We're running 10 points above the national
average for doses given. Hopefully, we will be able to expand soon, when we
get Johnson & Johnson board, because, look, that's what we want to do.

We want to get everybody vaccinated. But we're following the guidance and
the public health data right now. I mean, the concern for me, Charles, is
making sure that we have a hospital bed for everyone in this state that has
a COVID situation or non-COVID.

PAYNE:  Right.

KEMP:  And we know that 65-year-olds are more adversely affected by COVID
than those that are 45 or 50 or the teaching age.

PAYNE:  Right.

KEMP:  It's not that I don't want to do it, but we're really following the
advice of public health officials.

PAYNE:  Governor Kemp, appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

KEMP:  Thank you.

PAYNE:  So, ahead of the impeachment trial tomorrow, we know Democrats are
against former President Trump. But Jonathan Turley says one of their
arguments goes against every American's legal rights. And he's going to
explain.

Plus, big labor now worried about big job losses from President Biden's
pipeline decision. Mike Rowe is here on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE:  Jonathan Turley on tomorrow's impeachment trial, Mike Rowe on big
labor's beef with President Biden, and the polar vortex that's about to hit
us all with the coldest air in years.

We will be right back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE:  Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer laying out the
rules for the Trump impeachment trial which kicks off tomorrow.

Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill with the very latest -- Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT:  Good afternoon,
Charles.

Well, here is the bipartisan agreement. This is worked out by Senate
Democrats and Republicans, the House impeachment managers -- they're the
prosecutors in this case -- and also the president's defense counsel.

It all starts around 1:00 Eastern time Tuesday afternoon. And this is the
framework, 16 hours for House managers to make their case, 16 hours for the
president's defense counsel. And this is spread out over two days. It is
then up to the managers to request witnesses.

Later, there will be equal time for senators questions. They are submitted
in writing, then closing arguments and actual Senate deliberations.
Remember, it takes two-thirds to convict in the United States Senate.

Now, the Senate travel go dark for the Jewish Sabbath. That's at sundown
Friday night, at the request of the president's counsel, David Schoen. He
is an Orthodox Jew. The trial would resume on Sunday.

What we don't know right now is whether or not there would be a motion to
dismiss. That's something we have heard a little bit of chatter about. That
would take just 51 votes. But this is the framework, and it starts tomorrow
afternoon at 1:00 Eastern time -- Charles.

PAYNE:  Chad, thank you very much.

Now, ahead of the impeachment trial's start tomorrow, to preview today,
lead impeachment manager, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, says Trump's
refusal to testify -- quote -- "supports his guilt."

Well, my next guest says that statement trashes a core constitutional
principle.

Jonathan Turley is a George Washington University law professor and FOX
News contributor.

And he's here to explain.

By the way, we did reach out to Congressman Raskin, and we are still
awaiting a response.

Professor Turley, your thoughts?

JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Well, first of all, I would not
count Congressman Raskin's silence on this issue against him, because
that's an important value.

And putting that aside, this is a constitutional process. And our
constitutional values should not be a stranger to this trial. One of those
core values is that you not only have -- you're not only allowed to decline
testimony, but, generally, that is not used against you.

Now, it's true this isn't a constitutional -- I'm sorry -- this isn't a
criminal case. But these are important values that define us. It's also, by
the way, grossly unfair. Presidents historically have not testified.
There's various reasons for that.

But, in addition to those reasons, this president contests the
constitutionality of this trial. So, all those reasons are rather obvious
for not appearing for testimony. So what the House is saying is that we're
just going to ignore all that and argue that this is -- can be used as
evidence of your guilt.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't personally testify at his Senate trial. It's a
really obnoxious argument to make, particularly in these circumstances.
And, Charles, one of the really curious aspects of this is that the House
is making this argument, when it has done nothing to lock in testimony that
might show the president's intent or give us more information.

After holding a snap impeachment, which I have been very critical of, they
have allowed weeks to go by. They haven't locked in the testimony of a
dozen people who've spoken publicly who witnessed and spoke to the
president during this period.

They could have just locked in that testimony in the House. They could have
created the record that's missing over the last few weeks. But, instead,
they're saying that they're going to use the this silence of the president
against him.

PAYNE:  Now, you also wrote that the House Dems, the most grievous
constitutional crime that they're suggesting, that they're saying this is
the most grievous constitutional crime ever committed by a president, and
yet there's no declaration of an incitement.

There's no deliberate deliberation or meaning behind this. I mean, they're
making these declarative statements. They're bold. Certainly, they're
incendiary and provocative, but they're not any -- they're not adding any
substance to it. I mean, is this how we're going to go through this, just
with the sort of lobbing these sort of grenades, and nothing behind it?

TURLEY:  Well, Charles, this is part of the inherent conflict in the House
position.

They are insisting and many experts are insisting that the president should
not be arguing free speech or the First Amendment or those cases dealing
with incitement. And yet the House managers want to call this a
constitutional crime. They want to call it incitement to insurrection.

They just don't want to talk about the underlying case law. Well, there is
case law there.

PAYNE:  Right.

TURLEY:  It's relevant. It's not controlling.

But we often refer to these cases and the crimes that are referenced, at
least in part, in an article of impeachment. Those cases do not support the
House position that this is actual criminal incitement. Some members have
suggested it is. Many experts have.

I expect that case would likely collapse ultimately in federal court, if it
was actually brought against the president.

PAYNE:  Jonathan, I got 30 seconds, but you also wrote about our addiction
to rage as a nation, citing where one neighbor was pretty upset that her
Trump neighbors shoveled out her driveway.

Is all of this connected in your mind, and the impeachment, just to what's
happened with this country and our addiction to rage?

TURLEY:  I think it is.

I mean, the problem that the Democrats will face is that many of the past
reckless comments on the other side will be played. And everyone's been an
accessory to this -- these -- this politics of rage and division. But
people don't want to admit that they're actually addicted to it. They like
it.

And I think that column in The L.A. Times reflects that addiction. And that
may be the saddest thing of all that will come out of this trial.

PAYNE:  Professor Turley, thank you very much. Always appreciate it.

Well, if you're not already digging out, get ready for bitter cold
temperatures setting in. And that battle over President Biden's action on
the Keystone pipeline heating up, as big labor boss Richard Trumka blasts
it as a job killer.

Is it a decision that the president should consider reversing?

Mike Rowe is up. He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE:  Get ready for another winter blast, as some folks are still digging
out. A polar vortex is moving in and bringing in, in the coldest air and
years to millions of Americans.

AccuWeather's Mark Mancuso has the latest on where the deep freeze is
heading and just how cold can it get -- Mark.

MARK MANCUSO, ACCUWEATHER METEOROLOGIST:  That's right.

So far, the polar vortex has been well-behaved, but no longer. Check this
out, life below zero. These are the consecutive hours that we have been
below zero in these cities. Minneapolis, we finally climbed up to zero. So
we stopped the streak at 46 hours. So, what is that, anywhere from one to
three days of subzero air.

There it is, the big chunk of cold air. We call this the polar vortex.
That's now dropped the farthest south we have seen it this winter in
actually, as you said, the past couple of years. We haven't seen cold like
this.

So, here it is. This big area of purple is the arctic air. And notice right
here in West Central Canada, the coldest of the year swings down through
the Upper Midwest here at the end of the week. So, temperatures will relax
just a little bit tomorrow, certainly no heat wave, but not as cold. This
will probably be the warmest day, and then temperatures will start to drop
again.

Look at this. In Chicago, we're in the teens, but at the end of the week,
it gets colder. And look at Kansas City. The average is 41. We're in the
teens. And by the end of the week, with that second shot of cold, highs
will be down closer to zero.

And with all this weight of cold air coming down from the north, the storm
track will be suppressed farther south. So that will pave the way to some
light snows the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic. Farther South, we will see
some ice and rain. And for the end of the week, the next storm a little
farther itself, so we could have some problems with the ICE farther south,
off to the north.

It's pretty chilly. And that colder air will swipe through the Northeast
before it moves out over the weekend. Looks like we will have to wait until
after Valentine's Day to warm things up -- back to you.

PAYNE:  All right, so those Kansas City tears will turn into ice cubes.

Mark, thank you very much.

Meantime, big labor pushing back against President Biden's cancellation of
the Keystone XL pipeline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD TRUMKA, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO:  I wish he hadn't done that on the
first day, because the Laborers' International was right. It did and will
cost us jobs in the process.

QUESTION:  Do you think Biden realizes that that was a mistake, that
announcement?

TRUMKA:  I think so, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE:  AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka speaking out against the plan to
cut thousands of Americans' jobs.

The move also drawing criticism from my next guest, host of "Six Degrees
With Mike Rowe" on Discovery+.

Mike Rowe, Mike, I'm sort of surprised that Richard Trumka is surprised.
Nevertheless, he says what you have been saying for a long time. And this
is painful stuff.

MIKE ROWE, "SIX DEGREES WITH MIKE ROWE":  Yes, the surprise is surprising.

Far be it for me to criticize, but it is kind of interesting to see the
candidate that was supported by big labor do something that is so clearly
not in the interest of big labor. I guess the cognitive dissonance is
interesting to ruminate upon.

But, look, I don't think -- I don't think this story, from where I'm
sitting anyway, is just about the loss of jobs, which is a big deal, nor is
it just about the potential loss of energy independence, which is an even
bigger deal. It's about both of those things.

But, from my perspective, it's also about the incredible degree to which so
many millions of Americans have become disconnected from the role of fossil
fuels in their personal daily lives, not just at the pump, and not just at
the thermostat inside of the house, but with everything from yoga pants, to
the plastic keys on my keyboard right now.

This is -- we have affirmatively embarked, it seems, upon a larger plan,
where it's OK to make energy the enemy. And I think a lot of what's playing
out right now around this story are the logical symptoms of what a
reasonable person might expect to happen when a country decides that
there's truth in the claim that the world is going to end in 12 years.

PAYNE:  Yes, I think they actually moved that up to nine years.

But that being said...

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE:  Yes. You may have to change some of your vacation plans.

But, that being said, there's also an interesting twist in this, because
now oil prices are starting to skyrocket. And they have gone up a lot since
that executive order on Keystone. And this essential ingredient to our
economic freedom that gets us to take ambulances to take people to the
hospital, to provide the plastic partitions, so that teachers can go to
school and teach kids, is actually going to become more expensive.

Isn't that the sort of crazy irony of all this? The transition period to
when we can really get off of fossil fuels is so far away, that this is --
seems suicidal.

ROWE:  Well, the irony is undeniable, and it's rich.

And one of the things that a lot of people I don't think really understand
about the nature of energy is that there is no bigger investor, my
understanding, in alternative fuels than oil and natural gas.

So, you can't make those guys the enemy, if they are our best hope of
facilitating the transition that most reasonable people want. I don't know
of anybody who wants to live on a dirty planet or an unclean -- in an
unclean country.

PAYNE:  Right.

ROWE:  But this idea that we can flip a switch and suddenly get off of one
teat and onto another, that's harebrained.

And the shows that I work on over the years, I didn't really intend to do
this, but when I look back at "Dirty Jobs" and "Somebody's Gotta Do It" do
it and now "Six Degrees," they're all attempts to challenge this idea that
we're not connected in every imaginable way, because we are.

And we have become disconnected, unfortunately, in my view, from some of
the most critical things that make us a united country, from our history,
from our food, and of course, from our energy.

PAYNE:  Right.

ROWE:  All of these things still matter hugely.

PAYNE:  Mike -- Mike, I got 30 seconds, but you hit upon your new show,
"Six Degrees."

Tell us how it's different from what you have done and what we should
expect.

ROWE:  Well, it's very different from "Dirty Jobs." This is a show that
does attempt to prove that everything is in fact connected.

Ironically, the lead sponsor is the energy industry. So, I'm not on your
show for that reason, but it is very, very timely that this idea that we
are still connected can be proven through history in a really lighthearted
way. Each episode starts with a ridiculous question, like how a horseshoe
can help you find your soul mate.

I get an hour to prove that it's possible. And what we learn along the way
is that none of it would happen without energy.

PAYNE:  Love it.

Mike, I can't wait to watch. You have always been a favorite of everyone,
including myself. So, congratulations, and we will see you again real soon.
Thank you.

ROWE:  Take care.

PAYNE:  So, will the new administration's rules mean fewer restraints on
the illegal immigrations and actually more restraints on agents?

Why one guy who used to run ICE is worried about America's safety.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PROTESTERS:  Abolish ICE! Abolish ICE! Abolish ICE! Abolish ICE!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE:  Remember the calls to abolish ICE?

Well, one official telling The Washington Post that's what the Biden
administration is essentially dealing with new rules that are coming. Now,
they reportedly stop agents from pursuing deportations of some convicted
drug criminals, DUI drivers, and those involved in low-level assaults.

Former acting ICE Director Ron Vitiello is worried about these changes. And
he joins us now.

Ron, lay them all out for us, because it just -- it's fascinating, but
worrisome at the same time.

RON VITIELLO, FORMER ACTING U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTOR:  It is, Charles.

My heart goes out to the work force, because we just went through four
years of a president who wanted to try and fix the border and bring
integrity back to the immigration system. And now this administration is
sending a signal that we will travel the globe, that we're going to go soft
on border security and soft on immigration enforcement.

And so they put this memo out on the -- I guess it was on the 20th. They
made exceptions for somebody who's a national security threat. They made
exceptions for people who are convicted of aggravated felonies and if they
just crossed the border.

So, that leaves millions of people in the United States who are criminally
involved. They're in gangs. They could be accused of crimes like murder and
pedophilia, rape, arson, robbery, human trafficking. Those people would
still -- if they're not convicted of those crimes, even though they
committed them, they wouldn't be subject to deportation under the
guidelines that are be putting out.

So, we're definitely going soft on interior immigration enforcement. And
let me just say, last year, ICE arrested, in the administrative sense,
103,000-plus people; 90 percent of them had criminal arrests or
convictions.

And so they have already prioritized how they use their resources to
protect us.

PAYNE:  I mean, obviously, you would argue coming into the country
unauthorized is illegal, in of itself, and then to be able to compound that
and still not be forced or not be deported.

But I suspect that you're going to have then major cities who are going to
glom onto this as reasons not to cooperate with ICE, which we saw before
was an unmitigated disaster.

So, again, you started out by saying you feel badly for your former
colleagues. What's going to become of their jobs, I mean, the ability to do
their jobs?

VITIELLO:  It's going to be very difficult.

This memo authorizes those narrow exceptions. And if they want to make an
arrest outside of those exceptions, they have to get permission from the
director in Washington. That's going to deteriorate the chain of command.

And so what -- the other signal that's going out here is that they don't
trust the work force. You know, it's very rare for someone to get arrested
in the interior United States just for being here illegally. Most of them
are found by ICE because they have done something else, they're fugitives
from immigration court, or they're fugitives from local jurisdictions where
they have been arrested.

And that's how ICE finds some most of the people that they remove.

PAYNE:  Right.

VITIELLO:  And now they're taking those tools away from agents. And it's
not going to be good for the work force.

You have these people in the House that got elected on the abolish ICE
call.

PAYNE:  Yes.

VITIELLO:  And it's just -- it's not boding well for the country's
security.

This is going to put more pressure on the border. People are going to
recognize that we're not serious about this.

PAYNE:  Yes, I wanted to ask you about that.

Ron, I have got less than a minute.

VITIELLO:  Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE:  But I was a security policeman in the Air Force.

And the first thing I learned about anything is that deterring folks is the
main mission. You can deter women and young kids from making an arduous
multithousand -- trek or being victimized by mafias and coyotes. It seems
to me now that all of that sort deterrent is gone. And it's going to put
more people in danger.

Just your thoughts on that? And, again, I'm sorry. I have only got 30
seconds left.

VITIELLO:  No, it'll be -- it will put more pressure on the border.

It'll be more difficult for the agents down there to do that job, because,
like you said, the smugglers and the cartels are going to profit from the
flow that comes up this pipeline. And the people who are in the pipeline,
the smuggled aliens, they're not in good shape either.

PAYNE:  Yes.

VITIELLO:  These smugglers leave them out all over the terrain in terrible
weather. It's dangerous for them as well.

PAYNE:  Yes, we have heard the stories.

Ron Vitiello, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

By the way, we called Homeland Security Department for an interview. And we
are still right now waiting to hear back.

Up next:  There's a new push and Texas to crack down on social media
companies from cracking down on free speech. How will it work and do other
states need to do the same?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE:  Bitcoin is definitely not a bit player, surging again today on news
that Elon Musk's Tesla bought $1.5 billion worth of the cryptocurrency. The
electric carmaker planning to accept Bitcoin for future payments.

We will, of course, continue to watch the story as it rapidly develops.

Meantime, the free speech battle taking center stage in Texas. Republican
Governor Greg Abbott pushing for a bill that would prevent social media
platforms like Facebook and Twitter from canceling conservative speech.

Let's get the read from attorney Leeza Garber. By the way, Facebook had no
comment for us on this story. And we're still waiting to hear back from
Twitter.

Leeza, what do you make of it? We're seeing these states now take a stand.

LEEZA GARBER, ATTORNEY:  Hi, Charles. So good to see you. It's been too
long.

And Texas' approach right now is a creative one. It's certainly something
that other states are looking into, this kind of proactive legislation to
look into how Facebook and other social media platforms are moderating
their users and moderating content.

It all comes back to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which
is a piece of legislation that's now almost 30 years old. And it provides
this broad shield against liability for having the social media platform to
be able to moderate as they see fit and not be held liable for what users
post.

The problem is -- and this is something we see often in technology -- the
law simply doesn't move as fast as the technology does. So it's lagging
behind. And that's why states are looking to pick up what it's leaving
behind. And it's also President Biden is also saying there needs to be
changes. Pelosi has said there needs to be changes. So it's coming from
many, many areas.

PAYNE:  Yes, and, obviously, 30 years ago, these laws could not anticipate
the sort of reach and power. These have -- companies have become de facto
the public square. And it's -- everyone agrees it's time to do something.

And yet isn't it ironic that, more recently, it feels like they have
actually flaunted their disdain from conservatives? No longer trying to
hide it, no longer is saying the right things in press releases. They have
taken a lot of people off the platform. Google last week removed 100,000
people who had negative reviews of Robinhood.

I mean, they're taking it upon themselves to actively police their
platforms, and not they're policing it in favor of conservatives.

GARBER:  The problem is inherently, with the legislation that exists, these
platforms can do as they see fit. They are allowed to create their own
rules and they govern themselves.

What's interesting is that Zuckerberg of Facebook said as recently as early
this month that they want rules, they want better legislation, they want to
have less responsibility in terms of dictating what they're supposed to do
in terms of moderation.

But, so far, we're just seeing piecemeal steps. We have seen broad claims
that Section 230 helped create the Internet almost 30 years ago, with 26
little words, because it provided this freedom.

But now we see major political figures really pushing for better
legislation, more specific legislation to take into account the billions of
users that are on these platforms.

PAYNE:  Yes, but I think we all have to be careful. After Congress said
they would take steps against banks on Wall Street, what we saw were no
banks. We went years without any new banks. Same thing with oil. The only
ones who are going to win are big oil.

Whenever they take these steps, they, ironically, build the moat against
these powerful companies, and they have no true competition.

What -- is there a legal argument that says, OK, Parler can't compete,
certainly doesn't have the bandwidth to compete? There's no true
alternatives. Should that create a greater sense of urgency for lawmakers
to take some action here?

GARBER:  There should be a greater sense of urgency because of all these
issues that have come up all at once.

You see the deplatforming of major figures. You see questions of free
speech, even though free speech doesn't really apply, because these are
private platforms, private companies. But, in general, definitely, there
should be a push for a review of this legislation, because we have to
remember there are simply mere mortals behind the moderation of these
platforms.

We have lawyers. We have H.R. executives. But why are they the ones that
are allowed to say who's allowed to do what on these platforms? So, we need
better legislation.

PAYNE:  Well, we say the plot tickets. We will see, Leeza.

By the way, folks, Neil is back tomorrow. You can catch me on FOX Business.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may
not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the content.