Sen. Scott: Why don't Democrats want to secure the border?

close

Video

Sen. Scott: Why don't Democrats want to secure the border?

House to vote on border funding bill; Florida Sen. Rick Scott reacts.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," June 27, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right, the Supreme Court is off for the summer, but the battle over its final decision, well, is on, and it's already heating up the summer.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

And if there was any question about President Trump's reaction to the highest court in the land blocking a question about citizenship from the next census, we now have our answer. Kids, cover your ears, or something like that.

To Hillary Vaughn at the Supreme Court on what the justices are saying and what the president is now tweeting.

HILLARY VAUGHN, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil, well, the Supreme Court putting a freeze on the citizenship question for now, waiting to decide if it can be added to the 2020 census.

The Supreme Court says that the Commerce Department's reason for adding the question was inadequate. But they do say they do have the right to ask that question. They just need to prove that they aren't abusing it for political purposes.

And now the president says he might delay the 2020 count in response, Trump tweeting this -- quote -- "I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the sentence, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter."

Now, states and civil rights groups argue that Trump is using the census as a political weapon. The census decides how $600 billion in federal funds gets divvied up. Democrats worry that undercounting immigrant and Latino communities ultimately means they get less money and less congressional representation for them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: The clear intent of the administration is to rig the system in favor of Republicans by excluding and intimidating people from being a part of the census, to drive funds to their supporters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: (AUDIO GAP) say that the citizenship question is not only fair, but it is necessary because of liberal immigration policies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Sanctuary cities are created. You're asking people to come to your city. I don't think you should get a benefit from the federal government for doing that. And that's what happens when you count illegal immigrants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: Neil, Republicans also cheering a decision today on gerrymandering, the Supreme Court saying they don't have jurisdiction to essentially decide how districts are drawn. So that's considered a win for Republicans -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Hillary, great reporting, Hillary Vaughn outside the Supreme Court.

Now, the president is saying, maybe I can block this or delay this.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on whether he can.

Good to see you, Judge. What do you think?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: Neil.

Well, the relevant portion of the Constitution, which uses the word enumeration to mean census, says an enumeration shall be taken every 10 years. So I don't think the president has the discretion to stop it.

I mean, he might be able to delay it a little bit, but, certainly -- it certainly would need to be taken during the year 2020. And I don't think these cases will be resolved by then. There's actually two cases. There is a Maryland case and there's a New York case.

CAVUTO: Right.

NAPOLITANO: The Supreme Court today sent the case back to the federal judge in New York. He's the one who said to the census people, I don't believe you, you're not going to ask this question. Don't print the ballot -- don't print the questionnaires with this question about citizenship on it.

CAVUTO: All right, but the president seem to be saying, maybe if we sort of regroup here and make a more convincing argument, we can go back and do this again.

Can you?

NAPOLITANO: So the people challenging the census wanted to take the deposition, an examination under oath before trial, of Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce.

The Justice Department fought it and fought it and fought it. Secretary Ross made some statements. They -- the Commerce Department issued a release, and somebody else gave the deposition. Those things contradicted each other.

And the Supreme Court said, if you really want this question, give us one lucid, rational explanation for it. Don't give us three different explanations that are essentially not credible.

CAVUTO: Well, who is that on, Wilbur Ross for not doing so, or what?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I don't want to personally criticize the secretary, but it's the Department of Commerce which dropped the ball.

The question can be asked, what the Supreme Court didn't address is, does it have to be answered? That wasn't addressed today. So if they get the - - if they get their ducks in a row and it gets back to the Supreme Court, which I think is not feasible before 2020, and the census...

CAVUTO: Has that ever happened, where you had that quick a turnaround, they say, oh, whoa, whoa, we got some new...

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: No, no.

And, actually, the president should want the census, because the census shows generally movement of populations to the Southwest, Texas, Southeast, Florida. Guess what? More Republican representatives in the House of Representatives. He shouldn't want to delay that.

CAVUTO: Oh, that's interesting. Of course, this would be a crowd, we're told, that wouldn't want to vote for the president either, right?

NAPOLITANO: Right.

But, remember, the census...

CAVUTO: Understood.

NAPOLITANO: The law says 435 members of the House, so the census could -- I will use our home state -- they're going to kill me for saying this -- take a member of the House of Representatives away from New Jersey and add it to Texas. That would be a negative to the Democrats and a positive to the Republicans.

CAVUTO: Oh, I see what you're saying.

NAPOLITANO: But that will not happen and cannot happen if there's no 2020 census.

CAVUTO: You know, that's a brilliant read. I have not heard that from anyone. I'm so glad I thought of that.

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: Dion whispered it into my ear as I passing his wiring.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: You're the best, Judge. Thank you very much.

See, this is -- it's all on free basic cable.

All right, so how are these kind of decisions impacting the 2200 race? What kind of impact would they have?

Patrice Onwuka joins us right now with the Independent Women's Forum, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and the host of "Evening Edit" on FOX Business Network, Elizabeth MacDonald.

Lizzie, end it with you, and get your take on what the judge was saying. In a weird way, this could wheel around to the president's benefit. What do you think?

ELIZABETH MACDONALD, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think what the judge said is spot on.

And you know what is really interesting, Neil? So many countries ask the citizenship question. Australia has it, I think Germany and Indonesia. We have had a citizenship question dating back to the 1820s.

But here's the other interesting thing that I was looking into. He could delay it. The president could conceivably delay it to December of 2020. That would, though, mess up other states that they're trying to do redistricting in 2021. You can imagine court challenges there.

But the Census Bureau itself, Neil, has already said it doesn't need the question. It can accurately count citizens via machines and administrative records are in the system. Stanford University and Harvard has already looked at that. So that's -- it seems like a dust-up over something that the Census Bureau may be able to handle.

CAVUTO: You know, Patrice, I'm also wondering why there wasn't half the fuss made when the question was taken off in the first place, now, a long time ago, I grant you. But this was a lot more controversial.

But I'm wondering as well whether the commerce secretary dropped the ball or dismissed adequately explaining this, or providing evidence to support this. What do you think?

PATRICE ONWUKA, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM: Well, I mean, it certainly seems like he needed to make a more compelling case to the Supreme Court.

And I think it's been underscored time and time again here that the question is -- you can validly ask the question. It's just whether there is a rationale behind it.

I did think that Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, he says, this is the first time, though, that the court has actually questioned the motivation, invalidated an agency's behavior based on a motivation for the rationale.

So I think it's interesting that the court is saying, well, wait a minute, are we going to question every single federal agency and the decisions that they make based on whether there's some sort of motivation that we know or don't know about?

And that's an interesting area to be wading into. So we will see what happens next. And we will see if there are other administrative decisions that happen or actions that are taken that, again, the Supreme Court may have to take up.

CAVUTO: You know, Ari, maybe, for my money, I found the other decision today dealing with imposing limits on partisan redistricting, was much more compelling, in that you had the judges essentially say that they didn't want to get in the way of even acknowledging partisan gerrymandering.

And I wonder the impact of that. You heard Democrats cry foul, because this was originally citing to say it was Republicans trying to fix districts and all to their liking. Not much was said about in moments, of course, when Democrats were in a similar position trying to do the same.

But that one seems to have a more long-term impact. What did you make of it?

ARI FLEISCHER, CONTRIBUTOR: You know, I don't look at either case in terms of who benefits or who loses, because today's loser will be tomorrow's winner. And that's always the case with our system.

So the issue you should look for is, what principle is upheld? And in this case, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that the people are supreme, that if you have a political dispute among legislators, it should be settled by the people in the course of elections, not by judges.

And that's a lofty principle. That is how a democracy breathes. That's how we settle our disputes. And that's how the people get buy-in to the disputes.

If you don't like it, elect an entire new legislature. It becomes a compelling reason to take your case to the voter -- to the voters. It happens and legislators get thrown in, they get thrown out.

But I won't look at it, as did Trump? Will more people move to Texas or California? All that changes over the decades. It's the principles that count the most. And that's what the Supreme Court is...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, no, you're right about that.

But, speaking for the minority, Justice Kagan was saying that this was -- the court was taking a pass on intervening on an abuse of power by politicians.

Now, Chief Justice John Roberts had argued, Elizabeth, to the fact that federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major parties with no grant of authority in the Constitution.

In other words, they can't get involved in a partisan political matter. The only thing the confused me about that decision, whether you support it or not, whether it benefits Democrats in one -- one period or Republican in another period, that they have often come in the middle to resolve political disputes.

MACDONALD: Absolutely.

And I thought that was confusing too. I have seen court challenges and judges injecting themselves into this process time and again.

I think it's an important point that you make. And you know what's really interesting in what Ari was just talking, in the -- we're talking about the gerrymandering part of what the SCOTUS decided on today.

In the decision about the census, Justice Alito made the same argument, for the minority, when he said, judges shouldn't be injecting themselves into the census question.

So that was, I think, a really interesting kind of same point, but made on opposing sides of the different cases they were looking at, that the judges shouldn't be weighing in on the census. It's an interesting constitutional issue too.

Every nation should be allowed to just ask, are you a citizen? So it seems like a basic question other countries are asking as well. I'm just saying -- I'm just pointing out that the same argument that, Ari, and you just pointed out, for gerrymandering was made by Justice Alito in the census decision.

ONWUKA: Well, and, Liz, I think it also is hearkened by Justice Clarence Thomas saying, why are we weighing in on what a federal agency is doing from an administrative perspective? That's not our role here. And this is kind of the first time we're wading into it.

MACDONALD: Yes.

CAVUTO: All right. Well said.

I hate to cut this off. We got some breaking news. I want to thank you all.

The House is indeed expected to vote shortly on that immigration funding.

Senior Capitol Hill producer Chad Pergram on what we could be looking at -- Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, sometime probably in about the next 15 to 20 minutes, we expect a vote on the Senate bill in the House of Representatives.

It came -- it was pretty obvious after a while here on Capitol Hill, Neil, that they didn't have the votes in the Senate to take the House bill, the House bill that was approved earlier this week, and that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't budge.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, spoke with Vice President Pence twice today. And it seemed that the -- that the Senate just wasn't going to budge. Remember, the Senate passed that bill by a vote of 84-8 yesterday.

And there's an old expression here on Capitol Hill. They call it ping- pong. This is where they actually ping and pong the bills back and forth. So the House passed a bill. They pinged it over to the Senate. The Senate then made its changes and ponged it back to the House.

So what the House was talking about was maybe trying to ping-pong it back. And Mitch McConnell held a news conference this afternoon. And he said that they would make changes, change it back to the Senate bill, and send it back. That's where they were stuck.

And so Nancy Pelosi reluctantly has to take the Senate bill. And here's what she says -- quote -- We will reluctantly pass the Senate bill. As we pass the bill, we go forward with a battle cry to protect children in a way that honors their dignity and their worth."

So they're going to vote on this. This is a loss for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But this will pass on a bipartisan basis here in just about the next half-hour -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Well, if you're right, Chad, that would be the first bipartisan thing they have done since the criminal justice reform effort. Right?

PERGRAM: Absolutely. Yes, absolutely.

And keep in mind the House bill did pass by a bipartisan margin the other night, but it was just -- it was just three Republicans. There was a bigger margin in the Senate.

CAVUTO: Got it. All right, Chad, thank you very, very much.

PERGRAM: Thank you.

CAVUTO: All right, we have a lot more coming up, including what's in store for the big debate tonight, the second part, because this one involves Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

And a lot of people wondering whether it's going to be President Trump or Joe Biden the center of those attacks -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TULSI GABBARD, D-HI, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The American people deserve a president who will put your interests ahead of the rich and powerful.

BILL DE BLASIO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, we're supposed to be for a 70 percent tax rate on the wealthy.

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: An economy that is rigged to corporations and to the very wealthiest.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let giant corporations do whatever they want to do.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is about time that we have an economy that works for everybody, not just the wealthiest in our nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Did I hear 70 percent?

Anyway, welcome back.

We have got Charles Payne on all of this, The Washington Examiner's Siraj Hashmi. Very good to see him in the flesh. And also slightly left of center -- I wouldn't call her liberal -- commentator Danielle McLaughlin, although that's not a badge of dishonor.

DANIELLE MCLAUGHLIN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, absolutely not, Neil.

CAVUTO: Sure.

All right, so, as the liberal...

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Seventy percent?

MCLAUGHLIN: Marginal, 70 percent marginal.

So, look, when you look at the history of our country, and we look at the long history of high tax rates, between World War II and about 1963, the highest tax rate was 91 percent. Of course, Reagan rolled that back. And there have been fights around 35, 37 for decades now.

CAVUTO: So, 70 percent is a deal.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

MCLAUGHLIN: It's a deal. It's a deal of the century.

CAVUTO: Look, we could have taken everything.

MCLAUGHLIN: The Democrats thought about taking everything. Then they thought, you know what, we will just -- 70 percent marginal.

CAVUTO: I don't even know if the others share that view.

But, I mean, that might get you the nomination, Siraj. I don't know what happens afterwards.

SIRAJ HASHMI, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Here's the thing.

Democrats rally better than anything when it comes to coming -- and going against the rich and corporations. And it's one thing that -- Donald Trump railed against the political elite, and it worked.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

HASHMI: Democrats, they rail against the financial elite. And it works, because they believe that taxing people at 70 percent above, 91 percent, is good for the government, because the government will take care of them.

And that's why you are having this sort of rise of socialism, because young people, millennials, came out of college, job market was terrible for the last decade, and now they finally see that maybe the economy might be getting better, but they're still not getting the benefit of it.

CAVUTO: And it's popular. In that party, it's very, very popular.

CHARLES PAYNE, HOST, "MAKING MONEY": It is popular.

I think where the Dems make a mistake, though, is when they say, hey, want to go after Amazon, who made $6 billion, and still got a tax refund. That resonates with a lot of people, oh, hold up.

But then you want to tax a small business. You're saying that these are the bad people, these are the bad actors, these large, big businesses. People do have resentment toward them from both political -- by the way, apolitical people.

Almost everyone in America does believe that big business has the advantage. And they lump them in with what the 1 percent, the elites.

But then it's when you talk about going after them, and then you tax the small business, the person that just bought their Ford pickup truck for their plumbing business, and they have to lay someone off. And that's where it gets worrisome.

CAVUTO: You know where it also gets -- they distort the numbers.

You're entitled to your point of view, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts here.

MCLAUGHLIN: Facts.

CAVUTO: And one of the things that I saw being bandied about is that this wage constriction that's hitting the common man, when we have figures out that show the average growth for the middle class, lower classes, wage growth has been running about 3.4 to 3.6 percent for them, a little bit under 3 percent for the so-called uber-rich.

So I'm not saying that that shows that there is still not a chasm there. But chasms have existed in Democratic and Republican administrations alike going back decades.

MCLAUGHLIN: Sure. And across the world...

CAVUTO: But I just find that when they play fast and loose with that, you would almost think, well, wait a minute, this is distorted. The lower and middle class, they're not getting any wage increases. And that's a lie.

MCLAUGHLIN: No, that is a lie.

We have seen slow, but steady wage growth over at least a decade now. One thing that is also growing, though, is income inequality. So, over the last 30 years, we have seen income inequality grow.

CAVUTO: But, no, what I'm talking about, Danielle, that income inequality has actually narrowed in the last 15 months.

Now, that doesn't mean that could last 15 years.

MCLAUGHLIN: Right.

CAVUTO: But that's my thing. I just don't believe all the facts are getting out.

HASHMI: And also one thing that's interesting about this, this narrative of going after the rich and corporations, is that Democrats largely benefit from the rich and corporations.

CAVUTO: Right.

HASHMI: There's a good chunk of rich, the powerful elite who want to see more Democrats in office. Just look at Hollywood. Look at the political elite who are currently on -- the coastal elites, I should say.

They financed their campaigns.

CAVUTO: But some of them feel guilty about having all this money.

HASHMI: yes.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I don't know what it is.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What is going on?

PAYNE: Well, guilty, but they're leaving the money to foundations. They don't want to write a check to Uncle Sam right now.

I will say, when they bring up things like income inequality, and we zero in on it, it's worse in places where the Democrats have been in control, where they have run cities or states for decades, the homelessness in L.A., Seattle.

HASHMI: Yes, L.A.

PAYNE: I mean, this is -- these are the test beds. These are the petri dishes.

CAVUTO: Well, they're not going to change that tonight.

PAYNE: They're not going to change it tonight.

They're going to sing from the same hymn sheet, but the song is getting a little old.

CAVUTO: Yes, the hymn sheet has hit the fan.

See what I did there?

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: That was good.

CAVUTO: Basic cable. This is basic cable.

Stick around. We will have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, ISIS supporters are threatening new attacks ahead of our Independence Day holiday. They posted disturbing images online, including targets such as New York City.

Former New York State Homeland Security Director Michael Balboni with us now.

Michael, obviously, as you have reminded me, you have to take every threat very, very seriously. But is there any more substance to this than other warnings?

MICHAEL BALBONI, FORMER NEW YORK DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY: So this reminds me of the time -- I'm sure you recall this, Neil -- years ago, when there was a threat against the Mall of America and malls in...

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

BALBONI: Right, remember that?

And I got on then and said the challenge here is that here you have some faceless individual that is out there that is making a threat. And in our history with terrorism -- and it has never worked that someone has said, by the way, we're coming now, get prepared, pay attention.

It never works like that. Having said that, what's fascinating about this is, this is the first time in a while that ISIS has actually posted something with specific references to a target.

And here is, they took an image from a video game, which they put in both the picture of the Tower of London bursting into flames, as well as the Brooklyn Bridge.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

BALBONI: And they have an image of a jihadist soldier coming down from the bridge itself.

And they put in Arabic that time of attack is coming, very nonspecific. But it's fascinating that, after we completely cut off the head of the snake of ISIS with all of their territory, that, hey, they had amassed in the Middle East, we have completely taken away their resources, they are showing some type of resiliency.

And, of course, Neil, as you know, the Internet can be their biggest friend in terms of trying to recruit others to enter into their efforts.

CAVUTO: Maybe this threat is just that, Michael, a way to galvanize rabid supporters to follow these commands.

Now, it was interesting what you said at the outset there, that some of their more substantive and meaningful attacks have occurred without pre- announcing them. This one is pre-announced.

BALBONI: Right.

CAVUTO: But maybe you can help myself and folks at home about what you do.

And I know you always say, be extra vigilant. Look around.

BALBONI: Yes.

CAVUTO: If you see something, say something. As you know, in New York, almost anything you see would warrant saying something.

But what do you do?

BALBONI: So the first thing you take a look at is, what is truly the capability?

We can assume the intent is there. But who's in country? Who -- whether it's someone that has come in from outside, that -- had they have been trained? Or somebody who they have in place already, or is it someone that they're going to inspire to try to do something?

That's really the actors. Second is, what is their capability? You know, is there massive weapons? So, obviously, law enforcement and security forces throughout the United States watch this very carefully, who...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But what do you do if you're out in the middle of all this? You're in New York. You're in London.

BALBONI: Yes.

CAVUTO: You're in these places that are supposedly the targets.

There's only so much you can do, obviously be extra vigilant. What do you do?

BALBONI: So, you're absolutely right.

So you look at social media. That's one of -- you try to see whether or not people are talking about this, whether there's any type of footprint. You look at all of your intel sources. And you try to -- from your confidential informants, to folks that are in different types of communities that have had -- perhaps had some type of a history of...

CAVUTO: But what about average folks, just you?

You're in Manhattan that day.

BALBONI: Oh, us?

CAVUTO: What do you do?

BALBONI: Well, here's the thing. Neil, I will get to your question now.

The thing you do is, you do whatever you do on any type of event where there's a lot of people. You pay attention. You're not on the phone. You pay attention to what people are doing around you. What's the sense of the crowd?

Just you keep your head about you. It doesn't mean you don't go to a fireworks display from the Brooklyn Bridge. It doesn't mean you don't do that. But it just means you take the same types of steps you would if you're walking down a crowded Manhattan street.

You watch for who's next to you, realizing, by the way, that the NYPD, probably the finest police department in the world, they have taken lots of steps as well. And the person standing next to you might in fact be an undercover officer. You would never know that.

The ability to surveil who's in the crowd with the Lower Manhattan security initiative that they have, with all these types of cameras that are coordinated, and then also the people who provide real deterrence because of the uniform presence.

CAVUTO: Yes.

BALBONI: All these things come together in a city that has had a great track record of having major, major events and -- knock on wood -- never having anything happen to them.

CAVUTO: All right. Just be careful, extra cautious, all that stuff, words to live by, and stay living.

Michael Balboni, thank you very much, my friend.

BALBONI: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, well, we might have a deal with China? Maybe we don't have a deal with China?

That kind of confusion was what was really getting stock traders saying, you know what, we're not going to place any bets, ending the day kind of as they began the day, because they don't know a day from now how things will look -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Who says bipartisanship is dead? The House is expected to vote very shortly on that immigration funding bill. And enough Republicans and Democrats are ready to go along with it, that they proved the naysayers wrong, or could -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: No preconditions have been discussed at all. President Trump looks forward to the meeting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, hours away from the start of that summit, Larry Kudlow, a key economic adviser back in the United States, saying, you know, we're going into this with no preconditions at all.

Now, the president is going to be meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. Then it's anyone's guess what could happen. There are reports that maybe they're making some progress there.

But there are other reports that say, we're playing tough, and then, on some other areas, that the Chinese are playing tough. Hard to figure out.

I know John Roberts in Osaka, Japan, traveling with the president, knows a lot more about this than certainly I do.

John, what's the latest?

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Neil, from Osaka, where it's about 5:30 in the morning. The sun is up. And the president will be up very soon, beginning his day in about three hours' time.

He starts it off with a bilateral meeting with his host, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, with whom he has a very close relationship. He will then meet with Prime Minister Modi of India, the president not happy about India slapping tariffs on U.S. goods.

He will meet with Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, and Vladimir Putin of Russia. They're also throwing in there a bilateral meeting with Jair Bolsonaro, the new president of Brazil.

But, of course, it's the big meeting on Saturday with Xi Jinping that everybody is talking about. It could well determine whether trade talks could get back on track or remain derailed.

There has been some reporting you were mentioning just a moment ago that China's trying to put preconditions on that bilateral meeting, that the United States needs to ease up on its ban of Huawei products before the two leaders can sit down, and that the president will put an indefinite hold on new sanctions against China in order to facilitate talks.

A senior administration official telling FOX News that there is no agreement to postpone sanctions, though something could emerge to that end in meetings, and that it's unlikely in any event that the president will ease restrictions on Huawei as a condition of the bilateral meeting with Xi or even after that.

The chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, saying the president believes he has the stronger hand in negotiations. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KUDLOW: He said yesterday, or the day before, as he has in recent weeks, he's perfectly happy where we are, where he is, and where the U.S. is in these discussions.

We have tariffs. We're gaining revenues from the customs duty. Our economy is doing very well. China's is doing rather poorly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Now, the markets were up this morning on optimism that maybe a trade deal could get done. And it was those reports about Huawei and the potential for delaying sanctions that had the markets up.

But after Larry Kudlow went on the air shooting all of that down, the markets got a little wobbly, the Dow finished down. Some other indices were up. So it's a rather mixed day.

But the tale will not be told until those two leaders meet. And that won't be until about 36 hours from now, Neil, so don't hold your breath. But keep a close eye on what's going on here in Osaka.

CAVUTO: All right, John, you never sleep. You never, ever sleep, John Roberts in the middle of all of that.

(LAUGHTER)

ROBERTS: I will sleep when I die.

CAVUTO: Yes, I hear you. All right, thank you, my friend.

In the meantime, you think this isn't a big deal? Even a lot of Democrats in last night's debate say, well, when it comes to China, yes, it is a big deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN DELANEY, D-MD, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The biggest geopolitical challenge is China.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Economic threat, China.

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China and climate change.

REP. TIM RYAN, D-OH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China, without a question. They're wiping us around the world economically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right. That's in stark contrast, isn't it, to Joe Biden, when he first said they're not really competition, not really a threat.

That's a separate matter. He's changed his mind on that. We will see tonight.

Anyway, I would rather get Senator Joni Ernst on my FOX Business show was saying that the president needs to hold firm on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JONI ERNST, R-IA: Soybean farmers in Iowa, one of the largest-hit groups, they're sticking with the president on this. They have told me that the pain they're feeling from the tariffs right now on soybeans is no different than the pain they have felt five years ago from China, 10 years ago from China, and so on and so forth. You see the picture.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, to Scott Martin and what happens right now.

I mean, obviously, there's a lot of pressure for something. I think, at this point, as you have reminded me, Scott, just showing some progress or the framework of a potential deal would be enough.

But I'm wondering if we're at the stage where that really would be enough. What do you think?

SCOTT MARTIN, KINGSVIEW ASSET MANAGEMENT: Well, I guess, Neil, considering, in the last few weeks, it feels like we took a couple massive steps backwards, I guess progress would be welcome.

And I think that's really what the markets are telling us, Neil, as you and John Roberts talked about. Although it was early in Osaka, he was on point as usual about how the markets didn't take the latest, say, bad news or weird news, let's say, out of D.C., depending on who we're hearing from, Mnuchin or Kudlow or Trump.

CAVUTO: Yes.

MARTIN: It doesn't take the news as bad as it used to.

Before, that would knock down the S&P a couple percent if there was a negative tone or so on China. And so, nowadays, the markets, I think, are seeing that this is progress. Getting together and getting back to negotiating cable is progress, and, therefore, that's what the markets are expecting from this weekend.

CAVUTO: You have endured a lot of my crackpot theories over the years, and always with a nod and a smile.

But my latest one, my latest one is, the markets could be quite happy without a China deal because that all but guarantees a cut in interest rates. What do you think?

MARTIN: Yes, in a lot of cases, your crackpot theories are all I have. So I'm totally hanging on them.

(LAUGHTER)

MARTIN: And here's the other thing, Neil.

If you listen to companies, Apple and some of these major tech companies, they have started to hint about life somewhat after China. They have talked about ways to kind of diversify their supply chains, their manufacturing outside of China.

Now, the funny part about that was, that sounded like a good deal, until a couple days ago, when President Trump took some shots at Vietnam too, which was a China substitute. So it just depends on how deep, say, these companies can go in maybe preserving some of their supply chains, so that they can still make things cheaper overseas.

But there are plans being made that, if China does fall apart, if these trade talks don't work out, we do have some recourse here.

CAVUTO: All right, you talk about that we have gotten past each other, that maybe whatever deal we score, if it comes to that, we're kind of getting used to not dealing as much with each other.

I wonder how that's going to all factor out.

MARTIN: I don't think it's good.

I think markets like free trade. I think economies do best when there's -- there's free flow of good and services and when countries are getting along and when -- I mean, look at this central bank coordination around the world, Neil, that we have seen, just not from our Fed, but from the ECB and the BOJ and BOE.

I know I threw a lot of alphabet soup at you, but that's basically all our other contemporary central banks around the world. When we have this coordinated global effort to get economies growing, that tends to be better for the markets.

And so, as we talk more with China, as we hopefully we work out some of our differences, I think that's going to be good for everybody around the globe.

CAVUTO: Well put, and a very polite way to just pooh-pooh my market theories here. Always good seeing you, my friend.

MARTIN: I love them. Come on.

CAVUTO: Scott Martin on all of that.

All right, well, Congress getting very close to a deal on border funding. We're going to have Republican Senator Rick Scott on this.

I cannot stress enough the meaning and the importance of that, because it could be one of their first bipartisan acts, and with a lot of ripping and screaming at each other, but still potentially bipartisan, the first time since the criminal justice legislation. That was then.

It could be happening again now -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: You know, everyone doubted this. And it still might not happen, but it is very likely to happen.

I'm talking about Congress getting close to a border deal, a $4.6 billion deal, as the House debates a bill on that funding. Again, this is kind of melding some measures that essentially goes back to the Senate plan that the House votes on. And, holding their noses, they will likely vote for this. Too early to tell.

Let's get the read from Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott.

Senator, very good to have you.

SEN. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA.: It's nice to be on.

It looks like they're going to vote for it around 5:30 today, the House will.

CAVUTO: OK.

SCOTT: Our bill, the Senate bill, is very bipartisan. I think it passed 84-8. That's the positive.

We're going to -- we're going to help our border agents. We're going to do the things that we ought to be doing.

The problem is, is, why are we -- do we have to do this? Why don't the Democrats want to secure the border? And then why are they so rude to the people on our border that are working hard, our Border Patrol agents, our ICE agents?

Why do they -- they basically make them feel like they don't care about kids and things like that. So it's great that we're going to get this done today. But I still can't understand why we don't secure our borders and why they respect our Border Patrol agents.

CAVUTO: All right, well, you don't want to jinx it by bad-mouthing them too much at this stage, Senator. But I understand what you're saying.

But let me get your sense of what this does, because Democrats are saying they want to go for this because, at the very least, it will help the kids, and this is all about the kids. They have been saying it's all about the kids.

But, obviously, there are other features in this. Can you go through that?

SCOTT: Well, the most important thing, it's going to get more -- I mean, everything we actually need to be able to take care of these families that are coming across here because the Democrats won't fix our asylum laws, it's helping.

It's sheltering. It's providing them the resources they're going to need. So it's basically all the humanitarian issues that we're dealing with. But we're not -- what's frustrating, Neil, is, we're not solving the problem.

CAVUTO: Right.

I mean, there's a reason why these migrants still rush to the border. And there's a reason why all of these unaccompanied kids, it's quintupled over the last eight to 10 months, I understand.

But, be that as it may, Nancy Pelosi, who is speaking right now, some say she got the shorter end of the stick on this. But she's grudgingly supporting this move, maybe because of all the news on these kids, and then, of course, the father, the daughter, but that -- it's sad that it might have taken that to motivate everybody.

But what do you think happens after this, assuming this is passed today?

SCOTT: Well, first off, it's nice that it's bipartisan. It's nice that the House is going to -- it looks like the House is going to come along. I hope we don't see any more pictures. And I hope it doesn't happen where we have a young father with a 23-month-old child that drowns.

We had testimony by Border Patrol agents yesterday. And they said, in the last 12 months, they have -- they have prevented about 400 people from drowning.

So it's what -- here's what's frustrating. What they're doing is, by not fixing our asylum laws and not securing our borders and not giving us more technology, they're creating an incentive for these people to come and take this sort of risk with their lives, and that we see these children dying.

You just -- you just -- heart goes out to them. We all have family members that we love. And we can't imagine this happening.

CAVUTO: Right.

SCOTT: So I'm hoping that maybe this will be the impetus for them to do something. But, right now, I was in a committee meeting this week, and the Democrats were rude to Border Patrol and ICE.

And it just doesn't make sense to me.

CAVUTO: Well, you know, one of the things that Democrats mention about Republicans, I'm sure you're aware, Senator, is that you're -- not you specifically -- equally intransigent when it comes to dealing with DACA, the kids of illegals who are here and sort of in this legal limbo, and that both sides really have to work hard now to get over their reluctance to deal with issues that they might not like.

What do you think of that?

SCOTT: Well, first off, Neil, I have been very clear, we need to help our DACA kids. We need to have a permanent solution for TPS. We need to fix our work visa program, so people can come here and if they want to come here and work for a short period time and go back.

And -- but we have got to -- if you look at -- both sides have got to come together.

CAVUTO: Right.

SCOTT: It starts with securing our border. It's the most logical thing to do. We don't want terrorists to come across. We don't want drugs to come across.

We want people that want to live the same dream you and I are getting to live.

CAVUTO: So does that mean, Senator, just to be clear, that the president's threat of deportations that he put up for two weeks, that that's off now, that that -- does this include the kind of concessions that he wanted to avoid, you know, these -- these deportations?

SCOTT: He's not said that to me.

So, the -- I -- I don't -- I don't know. He's got an obligation enforce the laws of the country. That's his obligation. When I was a governor, I said, we're going to enforce all the laws. Go through the legislative process and change the laws. I'm going to enforce all the laws.

So the president does have an obligation to enforce every law in this country. And part of it is, you have got to have -- secure the border. And if you're here illegally, you're not -- you're not supposed to be here.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator, thank you very much for taking the time.

SCOTT: Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right.

Yet another American dies while visiting the Dominican Republic, and there are still no consistent answers, and, from the Dominican Republic, no new news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Another American tours has died in the Dominican Republic -- or from a trip from the Dominican Republic.

Denver resident Khalid Adkins became sick while visiting there just last week. Authorities are still looking into exactly what happened. At least 13 U.S. citizens have died after falling ill in the Caribbean country over the past year. Bookings there plunging 75 percent. Now some airlines are waiving fees for travelers canceling flights over worries about these mysterious deaths.

Meanwhile, back here in the U.S. of A., a heat wave is coming and it's, for a lot of the country, already here, hitting parts that are going to be feeling it right through maybe the Fourth of July.

AccuWeather meteorologist Daji Aswad is here to tell us just how hot everything could get.

DAJI, what are we looking at?

DAJI ASWAD, ACCUWEATHER METEOROLOGIST: Well, it's definitely going to get real hot, especially for that Fourth of July week. You might want to have the fan blowing outside, if you can, some water pushed on you, because the heat is going to be relentless across the Northeast.

And the AccuWeather RealFeel temperature for this week alone also going to be in the triple digits. Now, I'm going to give you an overview across the country.

Current temperatures back into Arizona, Phoenix 99 right now. We will continue to see heat build into Texas, as well as the Plains, and in the Northeast, currently in D.C., temperature at 91. And D.C. is one of those spots where the heat wave is likely to be official. We need -- to have a heat wave, you need three consecutive days of temperatures in the 90s.

We have this warm flow coming in from the west. And that's due to a ridge. But we will start to see that ridge break down a tad bit into Friday. And that's going to be because of a dip in the jet stream known as a trough, ahead of that, steamy conditions and humid air.

That pushes your AccuWeather RealFeel temperatures in the triple digits for your Friday, and we will continue to see the picture for that into your Fourth of July as well.

CAVUTO: All right, Daji, thank you very, very much.

In the meantime, it's going to be the battle part two, Bernie vs. Biden on the debate stage, or at least that's what everyone is centering on. But what about your money and what's at play here?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the second Democratic debate kicking off tonight, it could be, well, a battle between capitalism and socialism, or maybe not at all.

Peter Doocy in the middle of it all in Miami, where the candidates are going to be taking the stage a few hours from now -- Peter.

PETER DOOCY, CORRESPONDENT: About four hours from, Neil, now.

The two men at center stage are going to be the top two in the polls for the Democratic primary right now. That is Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

And if they are given the same opportunity that the candidates last night were to raise their hands if they support getting rid of private health insurance, we would expect to see Biden keep his hand down and Bernie's hand to shoot up, because he is a Democratic socialist who constantly calls for a political revolution, whereas Biden is presenting himself as a steady hand who could restore the government to the way things were before President Trump started to shake things up.

The Biden campaign told us last night their plan tonight is to talk policy, because people hear a lot about Joe Biden, but they don't hear much about his proposals.

Surprisingly, none of the 10 candidates who had two hours to lob an attack on the front-runner ever said his name. But Bernie Sanders got a shout-out from Elizabeth Warren, who stated that she is with Bernie in her steadfast support of Medicare for all.

Some relative newcomers to the national scene are going to share the stage with those two tonight, like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang. But the two men who lead them all right now are the two who have been around the longest -- Neil.

CAVUTO: You know what is interesting, Peter, was Joe Biden, who originally said he didn't see China as competition. Then he did a 180 on that.

I'm wondering, since so many of the candidates last night did raise China as a concern, whether that comes up again.

DOOCY: All somebody has to do is ask.

CAVUTO: Yes, you're right. That's it. Just ask. What did you mean about China?

All right, Peter, thank you very much, Peter Doocy in the middle of all of that.

Just taking you right now to the House, the Capitol Building right now, where they're taking up that measure, the $4.6 billion migrant funding, border funding emergency measure to deal with these kids and everything else, and also provide more funding for resources there.

That is expected to pass. It would be a bipartisan measure. Not everyone is happy, which is probably a good sign.

Here comes "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.