irrefutable that was wrong for vietnam war protesters to be spied upon. david: american government did that in 2016. that in my opinion a bombshell. my time's up. david asman in for neil today. david, it is yours. david: good to see you back, thank you very much, stuart. fox on top of capitalism on fire. bank ceos facing financial services committee for the first time under packs even waters leadership. and things are getting heated. welcome to "cavuto: coast to coast." i'm david asman in for neil cavuto. we have congressman kevin brady, former louisiana governor bobby jindal and former cke restaurant ceo, andy puzder. first deirdre bolton on the latest on the bank backlash. deirdre. reporter: that is right, david. very good to be with you. i'm here on capital hill. there are panel of ceos seven is of them from large banks,

large financial institutions. we know the chairman of the house financial services committee, maxine waters, prior to the hearing, david, said she didn't want to vilify this group of people. she was downplaying potential for drama. this is a check-in after 10 years after the credit crisis. that being said there have been some feisty exchanges. one in particular from congresswoman velazquez. she is a dem from new york. she was trying to pin down the citigroup ceo about pay discrepancy. here is part of the exchange. >> citigroup has the dubious distinction of having the largest discrepancy between ceo compensation and median employee salary of any of the institutions present here today, a rashable, 486 to 1 ratio. does this ratio seem fair to you?

>> [inaudible] >> i cannot hear you. >> congresswoman i don't think that is -- [inaudible]. reporter: you heard the ceo of citigroup essentially saying he has been very fortunate. that he himself does not decide on his own salary. it is put before the board and board and shareholders vote on it. he was saying essentially that you make $486 for everyone dollar that the majority of your employees make. raising issue. some hotter topics come up in addition to pay discrepancy. some institutions finance particular gun manufacturers that has come up. punitive fees. some ceos have taken questions on whether or not their banks, not quite predatory lending but really are abusive in the -- debit cards and credit cards. that was beginning of maxine waters' statement which we can play for you now, where she seems to alludes david, this

idea some of these institutions are once again too big to manage properly. here is the chairwoman's comments. >> i'm concerned that several is of these institutions are simply too big to manage their own operations. too big to serve our communities, and too big to care about the harm they have caused. reporter: so she went down, person by person, ceo by ceo, all seven of them lined up and asked them very pointedly, have you or have you not downsized your business, streamlined your business, made it more efficient since the credit crisis? most of the ceos answered pretty much on the point. if they stumbled at all they were pretty quick to jump on them. one interesting side note, david, there were a lot of meetings before these hearings today. our sources are telling us that congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, aoc she is sometimes referred to, actually did refuse to meet with main

bankers representatives before today's hearing. so some spicy exchanges inside and some spicy changes, or lack thereof on the outside. david back to you. david: that gives us a lot to talk about. deeder, thank you very much. "wsj at large" host gerry baker, fox business's charlie gasparino at democrats slamming big banks. gerri, i thought all the regulations, god frank and rest stop too big to fail. >> it was a show trial if you like. first time all the big bank ceos testified before congress since tween. we were in the financial crisis. that was routine, we had sort of routine show trials back then where democrats would bash them and they would have to defend them selfs. haven't had that in 10 years. max wean waters, has half a point. banks are bigger. they are bigger than 10 years ago. they haven't got smaller.

there is difference between size and safety. they are much more secure, much more capital. they are, they have addressed many of the issues of too big to fail in the sense that many of these banks now can be wound up if they get themselves into trouble. they're much safer in terms of much of their activities. morgan stanley completely reformed itself. the other banks are slimmed down, most of what they do in terms of their operations. much less risky. this is largely a political exercise which benefiting maxine waters much more than the general public. david: but, charlie, does it hurt maxine waters she is exposing her ignorance on so much of what banks do including student loans as stuart was saying? >> the banks did not -- this is pretty much pattycake this was pretty adobe nine stuff. the banks knew, all the banks have relationship with maxine waters, just so you no. that is why you have seen her, tell me about your student loans. that is the toughest question she is being asked, she is asking. i remember when dick fuld was up there.

i remember when lloyd blankfein, when he ran goldman, how twisted knife in this guy for hours and hours this is weak tea. i would say a couple things. take out the morgan stanleys of the world, take out the goldman sachs, look at the big banks. we do now have much more risk concentrated essentially in three banks, bank of america, citigroup, and jpmorgan. i had this conversation -- david: even though their balance sheets as gerry is saying a lot better than before the crisis. >> yeah, but they could be a lot worse depending which way interest rates go, what they're holding. listen one of the questions, one of the problems is, too big to fail exists. it's never going to end. if jpmorgan had a massive loss, we would have is to bail them out. why would we have to bail them out? they hold $3 trillion worth of deposits not sitting in a safe. we have the deposit insurance. people generally have accounts of less than $250,000 which is

what the deposit insurance covers. they're going to be bailed out. the risk, the real problem is, not now, okay, the real problem is, what you don't see. no one saw, you know, housing crisis was interesting because people saw it in 2006. they really didn't see it in 2004. i think that is the problem with risk. all these banks take risks. david: we could be there again? it could happen again? >> of course it could. somebody likes to say we're in the postcrisis phase which means we're in the precrisis phase. we have them routinely, 10, 15, 20 years. will it coming from the banks? lehman was big focus 12 years ago. >> it was the system. >> problems are more diffuse in the financial system. i think the big banks are significantly better shape, much lower leverage, much higher capital ratios, much better shape than 2005, 6, and 7. it is largely unregulated nonbank financial second torn and amount of debt in the economy held by individuals but

also by institutions and also by foreigners. that is -- >> they all old the same stuff though, gerry. what is aaa now may not be aaa in the future. the bottom line is this, citigroup, jpmorgan, and bank of america, now hold more assets than they held in the past. >> sure. >> you cannot hold enough capital to protect -- david: by the way it is worth noting that maxine waters comes with a little baggage in the whole financial crisis. >> right. david: and the bailout that followed as a result of that because her husband worked for a bank, was director of a bank that was terribly-run. the bailouts were supposed to be for good banks that got in trouble. this was a bad bank that got in trouble. their company car was a porsche. because her husband was on the board, a lot of people say she made sure they got a bailout. >> yeah. that's what they say. look, this is again a political exercise for her. there is a lot of frustration. as deirdre pointed out, i think

the most interesting story out of this hearing today is the one that didn't occur, which is aoc, out of 60 members of the house financial services committee, they all met with the bank ceos or representatives of ceos or representatives of the financial sector. aoc refused. one out of the 63 refused. david: she is socialist. she hates the foundation of capitalism which is the bank industry. >> although shows you what a political exercise this is. she is able to get up there say i refuse to speak. >> i think most interesting thing that maxine waters laid down. she did not go after them. david: except with mnuchin. sound bite. let me play the sound bite of her and mnuchin going against her. go ahead, play the sound bite. >> i have here every single time jack lew and other people came here. there has never been anybody been here more than 3 hours, 15 minutes. i sat here for over 3 hours 15 minutes. i told you i women come back. i don't believe we're sitting here negotiating when i come

back. we'll follow up with your office. how long would you like me to come back for next time? i have told you i will accommodate you. >> i appreciate that. and i appreciate your reminding us of the length of time other secretaries have been here. this is a new way, this is new day. new chair. i have the gavel at this point. if you wish to leave you may. >> can you clarify that for me? >> yes. clarify? >> so -- >> if you wish to leave you may. >> so we're dismissed is that correct? >> if you wish to leave you may leave. david: new day and a new way. what do you think, gerry. >> that is childish really. doesn't look good for anybody to be up there arguing. mnuchin hat a pound. he had been there a long time. congress, adults oversight power this is just all show stuff. >> yes. what i would tell you is this. maxine waters, i did a lot of reporting what maxine waters

would bring to the table as to the chair of this committee. it is important committee for our audience and wall street. she was not going to go after the banks. you could see that today. she was going after trump. anything involving trump and finances, taxes, deutch pang relationships. her main focus, if you're a bank, there are two banks you have to worry about maxine waters. number one is deutsche bank because of its connections to trump. the other one is wells fargo because she thinks they don't lend enough to minority communities particularly in her district. the rest of them, that was weak tea. david: gentlemen, good to see you both. thank you very much. coming up spying during 2016 on the trump campaign. attorney general bill barr just saying he thinks it did happen. what it means for the investigation into the investigation. and we'll have the very latest on "bulls & bears." that's tonight, every week night 5:00 p.m. eastern right here on fbn. don't miss it.

2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ )

i can customize eachy line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome.

customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today. >> what i'm most interested in, is getting started. hopefully the attorney general, he mentioned it yesterday, he is doing a great job, getting started on going back to the origins exactly where this all

started because this was an illegal witch-hunt, and everybody knew it. and they knew it too and they got caught. there is a hunger for that to happen in this country like i have never seen before. david: president trump pushing to look into russia's, the russian probe origins as attorney general bill barr he thinks spying actually did happen during 2016. listen. >> spying on a political campaign is a big deal. it's a big deal. i think spying did occur, yes, i think spying did occur. the question whether it was predicated, adequately predicated. i'm not suggesting it was not adequately predicated but i need to explore that. it is my obligation, congress is usually concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane. david: former deputy attorney assistant general under bush 43 tom dupree, says it is critical

that attorney general barr is personally looking into the russia probe's origins. it is a big deal for us to hear the word spying. i know it is just a word, but that word spying was contested by a whole lot of people first brought up by the president that he and hits campaign was spied on illegally in a sense, if the fbi didn't do due diligence back during the campaign. what do you think about that, the fact that he said absolutely there was spying? >> yes, david, that jumped out at me as well. often when we're discussing this issue we talk in the language of surveilance. i think the attorney general really ramped it up a lot, using that word which is a bit loaded, spying. i think it is significant. critical that the attorney general himself is personally getting invested in this. he made clear during his testimony yesterday, again, today. there is a new sheriff in town. he is not simply accept what had been given to him, what reports were presented. he personally wants to understand what happened. he wants to talk to people.

he wants to look at the evidence, reach his own determination, in his words whether spying surveillance was adequately predicated. means was there enough evidence to justify what happened. david: to see someone who is not a political grandstander, bill barr is anything but a political grandstander. a serious, sober kind of guy suggests that there was spying, not suggest, say there was spying, know that he is going to look into whether or not it was a political hit job. that is, whether or not people in the fbi and doj that struck bruce ohr crowd, working with fusion gps, doing a political hit job to keep the president out of the white house, or if he got into the white house to get him kick he had out of the white house. he will not do in political big way but do it quietly with an investigation. >> his testimony and demeanor really showed through. i think we saw many occasions during the back and forth with a lot of congressmen he was very reasonable adult in the room.

he gave thoughtful, sobered measured answers. you're right he is a big gruff. i think that really resonates with the american people. they want to appreciate, understand, have comfort politics will be taken out of this. someone will look at this evidence, make an impartial, apolitical judgment call whether what happened here was right or wrong. david: also addresses the investigation fatigue most americans have, because it is going to be handled quietly, not in a bombastic way, i think that is the way people want it handled as well. come out with a report with nothing, old joe friday from the television show, nothing but facts, ma'am. that's what we're going to get. >> i think that's right. attorney general barr has obviously served in this position before. i think he understands the culture of the justice department. he understands the culture of the fbi. he knows historically these agencies have not been political. they have not been comprised of grandstanders. he is determined to change course a bit, send the message to the american people.

david: there have been times when they have been political, they had been grandstanding. we had to have a bloodletting to get it out of the system whether during the nixon administration, james comey, whatever, looks like it is time for a housecleaning. i'm glad he is the guy to do it. tom, appreciate you coming in. >> thank you, david. take care. david: it's a close election in israel but in the end israeli netanyahu appears to have won a fifth term. president trump reacting earlier. listen. >> everybody said you can't have peace in the middle east with israel and the palestinians. i think we have a chance. i think we have now a better chance with bibi having won. david: former new york state assemblyman says it is close, whether close or not netanyahu's agenda got a big boost. how so, assemblyman? >> first of all, it is over and it is a huge win for the prime

minister. no question about that. in fact in the next 24 hours it will get even better for the prime minister because the political right will get an additional seat or two but the relationship between president trump and the prime minister is an opportunity to really pursue a peace deal from a different perspective. you know everyone has talked about peace forever. how far have we gotten? where are we? absolutely nowhere. with the prime minister getting a new mandate, a powerful mandate, that no one expected to this extent, working with the president at a great relationship, the trust, that the people of israel have, i want to point out in israel the political right, the political left, they love donald trump. they respect him. they love him. they trust him. so this is great victory for the people of israel, for the prime minister of israel, but it is a great victory for our president

as well. it is a great, great moment. let me tell you, i predict that our president in 2020 will duplicate what the prime minister just did in israel. david: we'll see about that but the current democratic party, it is interesting you're saying this, as former democratic assemblyman, the current democratic party as you well know is not a big fan of bibi or statements that really closs the line into anti-semitism from the democratic party. there are slaps on the wrist for those done it but nothing really serious. what do you make of all that? >> what is happening in the emdemocrattic party legitimatization of anti-semitism against people of israel. when you have members of congress, democrats in the congress not doing -- i wish

they were as dedicated to fighting anti-semitism, the democrats in congress as they are obsessed with donald trump and undermining the trump presidency. i wish they showed the same kind of dedication. unfortunately that is not the case. i am urging people, you know, a lot of democrats are not going to leave the democratic party, i get that. but i'm urging democrats, take a vacation in 2020. send a powerful message. david: assemblyman, we have to leave it there because we have breaking news. thank you very much. >> appreciate it. david: we want to go back to the committee hearings, house banking committee. jim heinz is talking right now. let's listen the. >> if i'm doing the math right that gives you each 30 seconds i'm going to ask you name a product or market, very quickly, what you think we should do about it, starting with mr. corbett. >> people talked a lot about leverage lending and what that's done. i don't believe today it is

systemic because most of it is being driven outside of the, outside of the regulated financial system. >> thank you. >> i say leveraged lending and student lending which is growing rapidly and deteriorating very rapidly. >> i go back to what we discussed in our risk committees. i'd say right now a lot of focus on the international markets. as i said earlier slowing global economy that will give rise to credit risks that we had a series of crises. >> probably can't do anything about the global economy. looking for product, market, service we should be worried about? >> i was taking market as geographic. i apologize. obviously the amount of credit in the corporate sector is large by historical standards. i don't think it's dangerous but it is large and something to be watchful of. >> thank you. >> i think the other day one of the lessons learned from the crisis leverage and places that my colleagues mentioned in

student lending is biggest on personal side in terms of impact right now. and on corporate side, it is leveraged finance. >> mr. moynihan, if i can, if leverage worries you that mean we should think about increasing generally speaking capital reserves and capital standards? >> we have capital standards tested under the worst scenario than the 2018 crisis, we end up with more capital after that we started 2018 crisis with. that is the purpose of stress testing. results are published every year for you to look at. >> thank you. mr. bohannon? >> concerned about student loans and concerned about anything that is pushing activity into the shadow banking system. >> i would agree with both of those things. >> not systemic yet the growth in shadow banking system is mentioned. there have been significant changes over the last 10 years in market structure. none of it has been stressed under test.

index product, etf product, machines, not tested under stress. >> thank you. i have another minute or so. many of you mentioned shadow banking. so mr. solomon, just to pick on you, talking hedge funds, private equity, what else are we talking right? >> there is significant credit formation. people talk about leveraged lending. sometimes they think about leveraged lending on banks of large institutions here but there is more and more direct lending being done in separate vehicles not regulated, not scrutinized. at the moment i don't think it is systemic. it growing and obscured. this is something over time the cycle continues have closer look at. >> should this committee, many of you mentioned shadow banking, should this committee take a hard look moving these entities that are doing shadow lending into a regulated environment? >> i personally think that there should be a hard lack and a better understanding what is there, potentially if it grows, continues to grow, this is something to consider but

certainly needs a harder look at transparency. >> thank you. i yield back balance my time. david: finally getting to serious questions in the banking committee. shadow lending, shadow banking that occurring here. that could be something unregulated that could cause a financial crisis sometime in the future. we were just talking to gerry baker and charlie gasparino about that. that is a serious question. some of the other areas of questioning have not been as serious. meanwhile president trump is trying to eliminate obamacare but bernie sanders, he just unveiled a plan that would expand it, of course expand your tax bill as well. speaking of taxes, we have the man who is really more responsible than any member of congress for creating the new tax law that we're all living under, saving money under, kevin brady, former chairman of the house ways and means committee is going to be joining us next to talk about taxes. we'll be right back.

$4.95. delivery drones or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. no matter what you trade, at fidelity state of the art technology makes it brilliant. the visionary lexus nx. lease the 2019 nx 300 for $359 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. ifor another 150 years. the fire going ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature.

♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

♪ >> the american people are increasingly clear. they want a health care system that guaranties health care to all americans as a right. they want a health care system which will lower health care costs and save them money. they want a health care system that will guarranty them freedom of choice. the american people want, and we are going to deliver a "medicare for all" single-payer system. david: presidential candidate, bernie sanders, that was gillibrand next to him, nodding yes for everything he said, unveiling a new "medicare for all" bill, that replaces current patchwork of insurers with one single-payer system, otherwise called socialized medicine. it covers long-term care. it could cost up to $32 trillion over a decade. the senate's top republican mitch mcconnell says the plan

section -- is extreme. >> this radical scheme would be serious bad news for america's hospital industry it, would cut your payments, further exacerbating the financial changes you face today rather than addressing them. my friend you hud not be the guinea pigs in some far left social experiment. david: but do republicans have a health care message in 2020? top republican on house ways and means committee, former chairman kevin brady. >> thanks, david. david: inanes sy, not just republicans who are against it, nancy pelosi said it is unworkable. she agreed with the 30 trillion door lar price tag for "medicare for all," socialized medicine is unworkable. can she steer her party away from it? >> the worst-kept secret in in washington, she controls the

house. she doesn't control her own party. they are lining up in support of "medicare for all," so-called "medicare for all," which is very risky, budget-busting, shoves everyone into one size fits all health care system. i know for republicans in congress, we created the children's health insurance program. the medicare part-d, the prescription drug program. and we created the medicare advantage program that 20 million seniors depend upon. all of those are wiped out under "medicare for all." even if you love the plan you have there at work, it is banned. so i really worry for americans, when your life is on the line, do you really want washington, do you trust washington with that decision? david: i encourage people to spend about a week in a hospital in england, public hospital in ending hand see if you like it. compare it to any hospital in the united states. i think it compares badly. will republicans though, have a clear message about health care going into the election going

into 2020? >> yes we will. we are one, strongly opposed to courts, opposed to courts taking away your preexisting protections, we're against democrats taking away health care at work, forcing you into the one size fits all plan. we believe as we protect preexisting conditions, we have to do more. out-of-pocket costs are soaring for families. you often can't go see the local doctor or go to the local hospital. we have to do more. i actually think that, you know with all the court cases, both parties ought to be working together this time to get low health care health care actually lower. david: talk about your favorite subject, one of mine, taxes. i don't like to pay it but i like to talk about reforming. >> yeah. david: first ours, and then the president. a new tax law, a new poll showing the 2% of taxpayers expect to pay more. that is not a lot of people, 28%, but a lot of people are getting smaller refunds as a

result of the benefits of this being frontloaded. did republicans explain it well enough to americans that maybe you won't get the refund you used to get but overall in the year, the course of the year you will save money? >> yeah it's a great point. so two things i think are at work here. one, recently, a liberal writer for vox was really praising liberal groups for having misled the american public. despite the fact the tax law was a success, clear majority are getting a tax cut, they have convinced people president trump is raising their taxes. i think that has been a deception, very well-told. that is the first thing. secondly, you know, we assumed, because as republicans since most families live paycheck to paycheck, they wanted that tax cut immediately. they wanted it in 2018 when they needed it most. it looks like maybe more americans want to see less immediately in higher tax refunds which to me, you want your, you want to keep your money now, not a year later.

nonetheless, if that is the case, i think we'll be encouraging people, go in, adjust the with holding, if you want higher refund, there is a way easily to make that happen. david: all right. let's talk now about the president's tax situation because of course democrats are still calling for release, trying to get his, all of his taxes going back several years. the president responding to the latest demand of democrats. let's watch. >> i would love to give them but i'm not going to do it while i'm owned orders. very simple. i got elected last time, same exact issue, with the same intensity which wasn't very much because frankly the people don't care. david: we had an election. after the president said he is not going to release all his taxes, people said, okay we still like the guy, we want him, no matter what. what do you think about the current call for his taxes? >> it is politically motivated, it is unprecedented and set is a dangerous precedent for the

future. this isn't about whether presidents should voluntarily release his tax returns as other presidents candidates v you could have that view. this is about if congress for the first time should have the power to target a private individual, to seize their tax returns, perhaps make them public for purely political reasons. the law of the land says congress cannot do that. your privacy matters but them really taking what i would say in illegitimate request, making that to the internal revenue service, it should be denied because again, there is no legitimate legislative purpose for this request, other than weaponizing the tax code against a political enemy. david: americans never like it when the tax code is weaponized. >> no neither party. david, i was chairman of the ways and means committee. i have that power, i didn't use it because you don't want republicans or democrats to be able to return to the old

nixon-fdr enemies list where you go after people. you just don't want that to happen. >> absolutely, kevin brady, great to see you again. >> thanks, david. david: appreciate you coming in. the robots are coming to walmart. a new rollout has some worried about the future of the company's workforce. a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere.

gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast.

david: out with creators in with robots. walmart saying at least 300 stores will be adding machines to scan shelves for out of stock products and autonomous floor scrubbers will be added to hundreds of stores. is this a warning sign to the human workforce? former cke restaurant ceo, america first policy advisor andy puzder joins us. we'll get into this in just a moment. you heard my conversation with brady about "medicare for all." you have something to add to it. go ahead. >> i heard bernie sanders say he wants to reduce the cost of

health care and improve the quality for people. there is only one thing in the history of the word that ever increased quality and decreased price, and that's competition. he wants to take competition out of the health care system and insert the government. the one thing that always happens when you eliminate competition and substitute the government is, prices go up and quality goes down. we need to insert competition back into the system, that is the only way the situation will get any better. >> absolutely. i couldn't agree more. one of the places the government loves to get involved in terms of wages. they see disparity between richest and poorest. they think the way to do it, bringing down wages at the top or bringing up through artificial means, the waynes at bottom, or combination of the two. of course a lot of people look at walmart saying that is why they're going to robots. robots are cheaper than minimum wage of 20 bucks. >> that is absolutely not true. if you look at what is happening in the economy generally right now you see the impact of economic growth.

we have amazon, target, costco, all going to $15 an hour in minimum wage. you have bank of america announcing they will to to $21 an hour. this is what the economy is doing without government compulsion, without government mandate. this is what you do with economic growth. walmart needs more employees. there are is huge demand for employees out there. the biggest problem businesses face is not enough employees. the only way walmart competes with the other companies to get employees, raising wages. they're using automation to cut other costs to increase wages to bring workers that they need. when there is no economic growth, like during the obama years, when the economy was stagnant, employees were competing with each other for jobs, you had stagnant wages. even with automation, even with accelerated automation we have eight straight months of 3% plus year-over-year wage growth. we haven't had one month of that prior to this, since 2009.

so, no, it is not bad news that they're doing this. david: okay. on the other hand, you're in the restaurant business and the profit margin of the restaurant business is about, hair thin. it is so thin. >> yep. david: that if outer officially up the minimum wage 20, 30, 40% you could knock a lot of restaurant businesses out of businesses. that is what is happening in new york and elsewhere. >> best research says if you raise minimum wage, it kills jobs, slows economic growth. no question about that. when the government mandates it it is a terrible thing. when you have economic growth to support more restaurants, higher wages, you can raise price as little because there is economic growth. commodity costs come down. that is lowered cost, when you have that kind of economic growth it is john kennedy's rising tide that lifts all boats. lifts wages at the bottom, it lifts wages at the top. it provides prosperity for

american people. with president trump's pro-growth capitalist policies that is exactly what is happening. david: thank you very much. andy puzder, appreciate you coming on. capitalism, we were just talk about it, it continues to be under attack on capitol hill and on the campaign trail. coming up former louisiana governor bobby jindal on how the gop can fight back. is microsoft helping the chinese military? did you see this story? we have new details you can't afford to miss. that's coming next. there's a lot to love about medicare.

there's also a lot to know. part a that's your hospital coverage, part b is all the doctor stuff... the most important thing to know? medicare doesn't pay for everything. and guess what that means... yep...you're on the hook for the rest. that's why it's important to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. so you could end up paying less out of your own pocket. that's nice. and these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. it feels good to have someone looking out for you. want to find out more? call unitedhealthcare insurance company now to request this free decision guide, with aarp medicare supplement plan options

to fit your needs. and learn how this type of plan works together with a part d prescription drug plan. here's something else good to know. with a medicare supplement plan, you have freedom. freedom to go with any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you're not restricted to a network. ever. and if you need to visit a specialist, you'll have a choice there, too. your coverage goes with you, too, anywhere you travel in the country. we have grandkids out of state. they love our long visits. not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare now to learn more and ask for your free decision guide. want to apply? go ahead, apply. anytime's a good time. remember, the #1 important thing, medicare doesn't pay for everything. a med supp plan could help pay some of what's left. and this is the only plan of its kind endorsed by aarp. that's the icing on the cake...

i love cake. finding the right aarp medicare supplement plan for you could be just a quick call away. so...call. david: at&t is rolling out 5g in seven more cities. that brings the total number up to 19 but get this, they still don't make a phone that can use it. "fox news headlines 24/7" host bret larsen joins us. whoops. >> we have a great network. definitely a tree falls in the word if anybody is there -- david: the point is, if you build it they will come. if you build a 5g system. >> saw sell phone structure. you had to have the infrastructure in past to cell the phones. we have the phones that work on new network and connect to the old network. we don't have that now. one phone from motorola

attachment will connect to verizon's 5g network. for at&t's 5g network they don't have any phones at all. they have a samsung phone coming later this year. they have a hot spot that will access the 5g network. that will be see more of as 5g deploys. less with the hand-sets. they have the technical problems with the handsets because of millimeter wave technology. the hot spot you put in the window. connect to high speed broadband that is wireless. it will be attractive offer for cord-cutters. i don't want cable company. my smartphone is not fast enough to get netflix streaming what have you. david: unfortunately there are some smartphones that are smart enough for 5g but they're made by huawei. they're made by the wrong people. >> we don't want that here. and our government smartly came out and said we're not letting you use any of their technology which, it doesn't put us behind.

it just puts us in into the position we have very different country geographically. it is large and have to roll out to urban areas and rural areas, suburb ban areas. those are all complications when it comes to wireless. david: is it easier to make a wholesale tech change going to 5g network if you have a communist government that can mandate they want for everybody? >> you can get great trains, great freeways, they will bulldoze whatever is in the way. you cannot say what is happening, can't complain the fact they tore down your apartment building to move you somewhere else. they can't do that. david: related to the chinese issue is this, "the financial times" reporting today, that microsoft worked with a chinese military-run university on artificial intelligence. bret, you say obviously brings up some ethical issues here. >> lots of ethical issues. it is not a surprise to anybody this country what china does and

how they treat their peep. we take advantage, we make a lot of our products over there, but they are using some of their artificial intelligence technology in very frightening ways. they're using it in ways that make episodes of "twilight zone" and "black mirror" look quaint. spying on citizens. warning people turning in their neighbors. david: it is horrible. >> i don't think microsoft intentionally did this google was also working with china on creating a search engine that would allow them to fill, or be fit properly in china's very strict censorship rules. david: we should mention, by the way, the story is heavily influenced by new america. that is a think tank. has over $30 million, that a lot of it comes from google itself. that is to say, eric schmidt is, i think he is chairman of the board of new america or at least influences the board. it kind ever helps google to help deflection onselves and put

attention. >> google backed down, when employees said we're not doing this. this is not how we want to be humans. david: but of course the flipside they have problems working with the pentagon? >> that makes sense. david: they don't have problems with working on something with the chinese that helps the military take over the world? >> it is surprising google has not stepped in to fix so many of our technical problems we have in our country. they're working on it. they're laying a lot of fiber to get high-speed internet. we'll see where that goes. david: bret, good to see you. good stuff. president trump just landing in texas, san tone know. his attorney general is on the hill. what william barr just said got some folks thinking this mueller saga might just be the beginning. you want to stick around for that.

yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ )

dad, it's fine. we have allstate. and with claimrateguard they won't raise your rates just because of a claim. that's why you're my favorite... i know. are you in good hands? david: welcome back. big banks facing off with congress for the first time since the financial crisis and things are getting heated. deirdre bolton is on capitol hill watching the latest. reporter: things have been getting heated. these ceos, basically there are seven lined up as i'm sure you have seen the images, taking questions from lawmakers on house financial services committee, chairwoman maxine waters of course leading the conversation. the topics have really ranged

from brexit to questions of to what extent these banks have been predatory and credit card fees and debit fees and overdraft fees. those are some of the topics that have been addressed. earlier on there was an odd exchange, no other way to say it, when chairwoman maxine waters asked each of the ceos about what they plan to do about student debt. here's her comment. >> last month, this committee received testimony that last year, one million students loan borrowers defaulted which is on top of the one million borrowers who defaulted the year before. what are you guys doing to help us with the student loan debt? who would like to answer first? mr. moynihan? >> we stopped making student loans in 2007 or so. >> you don't do it anymore. >> we ended student lending in 2009. >> mr. dimon? >> when the government took over student lending in 2010 or so, we stopped doing all student lending.

reporter: as you can see, the ceo of jpmorgan chase almost explaining that the government has actually taken over this area. it's not entirely clear if what the chairman wanted to ask which other people have suggested is that perhaps banks get in and lend to students as a separate group but not entirely clear for that. what we do know is something we have discussed a lot on our panel which is after mortgage debt in the u.s., that student debt is a large problem. we remember hitting that $1.5 trillion figure last year and that number has, in fact, tripled since 2005. understandably, it comes up as a topic of conversation, but the line of questioning perhaps unclear in that particular instance. as far as some of the other things that we are seeing and hearing in the room and out of the room, i probably mentioned this earlier, but some of the lawmakers did actually meet with some of the representatives, other executives, ceos, members

of their team, before today's hearing. we do know the freshman congresswoman from new york, alexandria ocasio-cortez, actually just refused to meet with some of the representatives from the banks before today's hearing. david: deirdre, forgive me for jumping in. i wanted to alert our viewers as to what we are seeing on the screen. the president has just arrived in san antonio. he's there for several reasons. of course, the border is one of the key reasons he's there, is to check out what's happening in texas, san antonio itself, not a border town but he's going to be talking about the border. he's also going to be talking about the energy business. we will be talking here about that. he's very proud of the reinvigoration of carbon energy since he became president. we are going to be talking about all that and a lot more coming up. let's get back to banks. maxine waters saying banks are still too big. to janney chief investment

strategist on whether or not banks could be the cause of the next financial crisis. i think it's interesting the chairman of the committee looking into this didn't seem to know that private banks got out of the student loan business. that's pretty remarkable, isn't it? >> well, it is interesting. obviously it's where government policy which was probably initially intended to be supplemental to allow students more access to college ended up driving the business that the banks usually underwrote out of business. student lending. so i think deirdre mentioned it's uncertain as to what she was going after with that question but nonetheless, it is a problem. david: i think i know what she was going after. she was figuring there would be some way to blame the private banks for the student loan crisis, and in fact, she realized because she didn't know that they had been forced out by the government, that there's no way she could make that connection. >> well, obviously they are big institutions and i think they

have bull's eyes on their backs after what happened in the aftermath of the financial crisis. they are an easy target for that kind of repertoire. david: but on the other hand, they are in pretty good shape right now, are they not? >> i totally agree with you there. obviously in the aftermath of the financial crisis, they have been rendered subject of these consistent annual stress tests that have been undertaken by the federal reserve bank here in the united states. assuming draconian conditions they had to pass. initially some failed in different aspects of what was required for them to be able to meet, but eventually, now all in fact are sufficiently capitalized, in fact, by some measures, way overcapitalized, unlike anything we have seen in generations. i think the health of the banks is the least of our concerns as it relates to what might be the source of the next financial crisis. david: there were concerns, i think one of the legitimate line of questioning we heard was on shadow banking. does that concern you? >> well, yes, i think it does,

by way of the kind of either predatory lending practices or the kind of lending that's occurring with covenant standards that are exceedingly light, such that it may not be necessarily the cause of the next recession but could amplify it. i know certainly of the ceos made comment of the things that concerned them most, not as it related to financial institutions per se, but with the leverage loan market. i can't help but think a lot of that is contributed to by the shadow banking activity. david: always a pleasure to see you. thank you for coming in. appreciate it. from hearings to the nation's heartland, president trump just arriving in texas amid growing signs his border strategy may take a more hard line approach but with apprehensions rising as well as rising legal backlash, what options does the president have? to republican congressman from california, tom mcclintock. i must say, the immigration picture is looking kind of bleak right now, wouldn't you agree?

>> sort of. it would be looking bleak if nothing was being done about it but i think the president's insistence on moving forward with the botherrder wall as qui as possible is a huge plus and great source of hope for the country. david: you know, san diego is an extraordinary example of a wall that stemmed the flow of immigration that was getting to epic proportions. in san diego, you have this 47 mile wall which was built i take it in three stages, and it had a 97% reduction rate in immigration as a result of that wall. when people say walls don't work, how do they answer the reasons that san diego's seems to be working? >> it's not just san diego. israel constructed a 146-mile wall to protect them against illegal immigration from their southern border. it was 99% effective. walls have been built for

millenia in order to stem illegal immigration. the reason is they work. david: they work, but clearly, some of our immigration laws, particularly our asylum laws, do not work. the idea of getting some change to stem the flow of immigration through asylum laws means that somehow, republicans and democrats would have to work together. is that conceivable in this environment? >> well, i think it is if the democrats are willing to give on border security, republicans certainly want to address the daca issue, the issue of people brought to this country as children, having grown up here have maybe dim memories of their home country but are for all intents and purposes, american. we need to deal with that but we can't deal with that until we secure our borders. otherwise we are just encouraging a new wave of children being brought across the border which we are seeing

right now before our eyes. so yes, there is ground for compromise. the big problem, though, is i don't think the left wants to compromise. the left knows exactly what's going on on the border. it is a crisis but the problem is they like it. it fits their political agenda. i believe they think if they can bring in a large dependent population that's susceptible to every empty promise made by the socialist left that that's their ticket to future power in our country. that's why they're taking the position they are. they know what's going on. they don't want to deal with it because it fits their political agenda. david: as if that wasn't bad enough, then you have the problems of the courts. you have this court decision which tries to contradict what the president has been doing with the asylum laws, trying to keep people in mexico before they go over the border. a court said they can't do that, that somehow it's against the rights of asylum seekers to keep them in mexico. what do you think of these court decisions?

>> well, they make a mockery of our asylum laws. asylum is reserved for people who have actually been singled out by their government for persecution because they belong to a certain disfavored group. just living in a country that is plagued by poverty and violence does not entitle every person in it to seek asylum in our country. what they're doing is they are crowding out the legitimate asylum seekers who do have a claim on refuge in our country. david: how do we deal with these court decisions? can we have an accelerated decision made by the supreme court which hopefully would overturn this lower court decision? >> that's what i'm hoping for, expedited consideration by the supreme court. this is a crisis. the president has been very, very careful to stay within the bounds of the laws in obtaining this money and in moving forward with the border wall. i think if they are on the right

side of the law in their enforcement of our asylum laws and in their control of our border, but we have activist judges in the lower courts that are doing everything they can to thwart it. the sooner we can get this to the supreme court and get it resolved, the better. david: good to see you, congressman. thank you for coming in. appreciate it. from the border to boeing, boeing's market value plummeting as it faces a lawsuit from shareholders over the 737 max crashes. gerri willis has the latest from the new york stock exchange. gerri: that's right. this lawsuit filed on behalf of investors accuses boeing of defrauding share holders by concealing safety deficiencies in the 737 max planes before two fatal crashes led to their worldwide grounding. the software patch expected to be completed in the next three to four weeks. according to the suit, boeing effectively put profitability and growth ahead of airplane safety and honesty by rushing the 737 max to market, while leaving out extra or optional features designed to prevent the

ethiopian airlines and lion air crashes. the lawsuit seeks damages for boeing stockholders from january 5th to march 21st. the suit was filed in u.s. district court in northern illinois. boeing told us they had no comment on the lawsuit. the company said on tuesday aircraft orders in the first quarter fell to 95 from 180 a year earlier with no orders for the 737 max following that worldwide grounding. and get this. today marks the one-month anniversary since the crash of the ethiopian airlines flight. down 13% over that period. back to you. david: it is drawing the market down. the market would be positive. were it not for boeing. good stuff. thank you very much. bank ceos getting pressed on capitol hill. democrats not letting up on the questioning. we will be bringing you an update in just a moment.

and former governor bobby jindal is here with his take on this and more. don't miss "bulls & bears" at 5:00 p.m. eastern. we break down all of today's headlines with a great panel. we'll be right back. i'm working to keep the fire going for another 150 years. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine.

♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪ a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast.

david: shadow banking, that's all about allegations of conservative bias and that's the focus of today's tech hearings on capitol hill. hillary vaughn on what we can expect. reporter: one tech company not at this hearing today that got an invitation will be google. google wanted to send max pappas, head of conservative outreach at google, to testify in front of the senate judiciary committee chaired by his former boss, senator ted cruz, but the committee blocked it and a source familiar with google's thinking on the matter tells me it's ironic that a conservative is being censored at a hearing about conservative censorship, saying the committee is making this hearing a circus. google is off the guess list but facebook and twitter will be there today. facebook's public policy director faced criticism from house lawmakers yesterday over what the site did not censor, things like hate speech. but today, he will face criticism from the senate over what facebook has censored on the platform. a source familiar with the

remarks today tells me he will flatly deny that facebook has done anything to censor content based on the political viewpoint of the person posting the content, but still, some of the senators on this committee have been censored incorrectly in the past. senator marsha blackburn's abortion campaign ad was delayed on twitter because it was accidentally flagged for sensitive content. twitter says they made a mistake doing that but now senator blackburn will have a chance to meet face-to-face with a twitter representative and get to ask him all the tough questions about what went wrong. david? david: hillary, thank you very much. very interesting stuff. meanwhile, fireworks of another kind on capitol hill. bank ceos were the focus today but yesterday, maxine waters, chairman of the banking committee, had another target. take a look. >> if you wish to leave, you may. >> okay. so we're dismissed, is that correct? >> if you wish to leave, you may leave. >> i don't understand what you're saying.

>> you're wasting your time. david: oh, boy. here on what to make of this backlash, steph knight, foundation for liberty and american greatness founder nick adams and democrat strategist, antoine c. wright. she's chairman. maxine waters is supposed to be the one who keeps order, not disturbs it. some people say she helped to disturb order. what do you think? >> it was certainly a fascinating thing to watch, to see maxine waters kind of push steve mnuchin towards staying, mnuchin trying to leave. there was definitely a lot of fireworks there, as you said. i think it's really symbolic of the entire fight we're seeing over trump's tax returns, where we are seeing democrats very adamant that the president turn over his returns, that the irs turn over his tax returns, and the white house and white house officials being slow to actually agree to those terms. so i think kind of the frustration in that entire

situation kind of came out in this moment over whether to end the hearing or not yesterday. david: antoine, in favor of chairman waters, she can be pretty militant when she wants to be, talking about impeachment, everything, but as charlie gasparino, who is no big fan of hers, said earlier, she really did sort of downplay it despite that exchange. what do you think? >> well, first of all, i would not call african-american legend maxine waters, chairwoman of the committee, militant. i would call her representing the viewpoints of the people who sent her to congress. secondarily, i will tell you what i saw from that hearing was the arrogance from the trump administration and secretary after secretary who come before a democratic committee, particularly those who are chaired by african-americans, tend to have the same type of behavior, think they can do and say what they want. congress has an obligation to be a checks and balance point for this administration and for

these secretaries, they have to understand elections have consequences. david: they sure do. nick, on the other hand, some people point to maxine waters' baggage with regard to the banking industry, particularly in the bailout when she was instrumental in getting a bailout to a very badly run bank that her husband happened to be on the board of. do you think there's any conflict of interest there? >> well, look, i watched the dust-up with great interest yesterday. i didn't see republicans treating jack lew or tim geithner before him, who were treasury secretaries, that particular way. i do think congresswoman waters does provoke things and i think secretary mnuchin was there of his own accord. he voluntarily came. i thought given the extent of the provocation, i thought he was extraordinarily nice. david: steph, let's move beyond that particular exchange to what

happens now with that particular committee and other committees in the house, where you have people who have pretty strident views, whether it's banking or foreign policy, now in charge of committees. how much work is going to get done when you have obviously this barrier between the house and the senate, the senate controlled by republicans who are going to pretty much turn down everything the committee chairman in the house wants to do. >> we have certainly seen the house now controlled by democrats focus on a lot of different issues. they have passed a lot of bills, they started a lot of investigations, but as you said, the likelihood of those going anywhere at this point is pretty small, with the senate still in republican hands and the white house very unwilling to work with democrats in the house as well. i think we will continue to see people making political statements, making it clear what the democratic platform is, you know, issues like the green new deal, issues that democrats hold dear, they will use their control of the house to push

those issues and push the conversation forward but whether they get -- david: i'm wondering about issues that americans across the board, the left and the right, care about, like for example, immigration. we all know that our immigration laws are antiquated. they need tweaking. we need tweaks in the asylum laws. we need republicans and democrats to work together, not a wholesale -- they will never do a wholesale immigration policy but tweaking laws that now exist that are creating chaos on the border. is there any way some kind of deal could be made on the margin in that area? >> let me be clear. democrats, believe it or not, regardless of what the right may try to portray, can investigate and legislate. we have seen them pass issues that americans care about like government reform, like protecting pre-existing conditions, like protecting our environment, like raising wages, like -- david: how about immigration, to my point? is there any way we can get tweaks in im gamigration laws? >> democrats have been talking about trying to work with

republicans to do comprehensive immigration reform for a very long time. it was the republican president who rejected the democratic and the republican proposal, bipartisan legislation, to do comprehensive immigration reform and we cannot forget that. david: but nick, it was a democrat president who couldn't get a deal done when he had a democratic house and senate on immigration either. so it's been a tough nut no matter who is in charge. >> you and i both know -- david: hold on a second. i'm wondering is it possible we can get something done that will really change what even democrats now admit is a crisis on the border? >> certainly hope so, david, because there's urgent change needed. right now it's really easy for bad people to come to the united states of america and it's really hard for good people to come. it's a moral inversion of the worst kind. i think tough love needs to be exercised. i think the democrats need to get behind it. there is a crisis on the border. we do not want people coming to america the wrong way. we should not accept or reward people coming the wrong way.

weakness is provocative and the left in this instance are not doing the right thing by the american people. david: it was a week or two ago, there is nothing to laugh about about the crisis on the border, democrats were -- >> i'm laughing at his response. david: we had beto o'rourke saying it's no problem, he was actually there, then you had jeh johnson, another very distinguished democrats, head of dhs in the obama administration, saying indeed it was a crisis on the border. they couldn't ignore it. >> you are twisting words, david. david: that was an interesting change in their perspective, was it not, steph? >> it was. immigration and the crisis at the border, something i have been following very closely for axios, it certainly has become a logistical issue when we are looking at the number of migrants crossing the border, especially families, children and parents which makes it more complicated and how is the government supposed to care for these migrants and process them in legal ways. it certainly is a crisis. as you have said, the immigration lawyers i have

spoken to who are very pro-immigration still acknowledge that yeah, there's a logistical crisis here and something needs to be done. what we have seen over and over and over again as you pointed out is this very hard for congress to reach an agreement on how to change immigration laws. >> you all are twisting words when you talk about the crisis at the border. no one disagrees with the fact that we have to do something about immigration system. what democrats have said is trump's border wall is not a crisis. his border wall, the president's border wall, that's what we have been very clear about. we have been very clear about the border wall. democrats have been very clear about that. david: good to see you all. thank you for coming in. meanwhile, bernie sanders says he's a millionaire. thank you, capitalism. bobby jindal explains, next. heading into retirement you want to follow your passions

rather than worry about how to pay for long-term care. brighthouse smartcare℠ is a hybrid life insurance and long-term care product. it protects your family while providing long-term care coverage, should you need it. so you can explore all the amazing things ahead. talk to your advisor about brighthouse smartcare. brighthouse financial. build for what's ahead℠

brighthouse financial. ♪ mmm, exactly!ug liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

the american people are increasingly clear. they want a health care system that guarantees health care to all americans as a right, brothers and sisters. in other words, the american people want and we are going to deliver a medicare for all single payer system. thank you. david: senator bernie sanders renewing his medicare for all push. he's leading the charge against the free market but sanders just admitting that he is a millionaire. bobby jindal says because of the free market, he's a millionaire. the former louisiana governor and former gop presidential candidate joins us now. very easy to be a socialist when you're a millionaire, right? >> that's right. that's the beauty about capitalist version socialist. socialists want everybody to be equally poor. we capitalists want everybody to have the chance to make a million dollars. shouldn't have to be a politician to do that. by the way, bernie sanders keeps

telling us the american people don't pay enough taxes. i'm assuming he's going to be donating his millions to the medicare trust fund as a small down payment to that $32 trillion bill he wants to stick the rest of us with. don't hold your breath. david: we used to have this organization, millionaires for higher taxes which i think still exists. we always ask them the question when was the last check you wrote to the u.s. government giving back how much you think you owe or how much millionaires, and they always say gee, we haven't written that check yet. >> here's the issue. i don't begrudge anybody their success. i think it's a great thing about america that if you work hard, bernie said look, if you want a million dollars, you write a best-selling book. that's great. i just wish you didn't see so many politicians like sanders who get elected, don't do very well in the private sector, then leave office as multi-millionaires. that's what concerns me. the path to success in america shouldn't be through politics. unfortunately in the socialist economy, it's the elites, the government insiders, they are

the ones that do well while the rest of us suffer. david: right. one of those examples is socialized medicine. i can't tell you, there's one private clinic left, i believe, in london right now amidst all their socialized medicine. i had to go in there for a procedure that one of my family members had and i saw politicians in there. in other words, the politicians who forced britain to lower its health care standards because of socialized medicine, they go to the private, the one private clinic that's left. you are absolutely right. meanwhile, bernie sanders is pushing socialized medicine in this country even though nancy pelosi has stood up against it. she said it's going to cost $30 trillion. it would bankrupt america and it's no good. how do you think democrats are going to sort all this out? >> look, i think this is a real problem for the democratic party. they are being pulled to the radical left by their base on things like medicare for all, the green new deal, things like reparations, they can't even condemn anti-semitism without getting into a big fight about it. you go back to medicare for all,

it's going to cost $32 trillion but even worse than that, at least president obama had the decency to lie to us. at least he said look, if you like your health plan, you can keep it. he didn't mean it but at least he pretended. senator sanders is not even doing that. he's telling the 170, 180 million americans that have good private health insurance, look, too bad, if you like your health plan, you are going to lose it. that doesn't mean private health insurance world is perfect. it certainly can be improved. but americans shouldn't be forced to give up their private coverage and forced on to a one size fits all government-run plan that means higher taxes, more government control. only the liberal democrats would look at obamacare and say the problem with obamacare is we didn't go far enough. we didn't raise enough taxes. we didn't spend enough money, we didn't take over more of the health care system, we didn't kick enough people off their insurance system. it seems to me they learned exactly the wrong lessons from obamacare. david: it's going to be very interesting what happens if they end up with a socialist as the head of the democrat party running for the election in 2020, and you have the head of

the house, nancy pelosi, rejecting his major policies regarding socialized medicine. let me switch gears, if i can. alexandria ocasio-cortez, among others, blasting outgoing homeland secretary kirstjen n nielsen saying she doesn't deserve a new job over issues of family separation at the border. she accused kirstjen nielsen of stealing thousands of children in the first line of that, saying this was one of the largest scale human rights violations in recent human history. what do you make of this? >> well, two things. every time aoc talks, president trump's campaign should count it as an in-kind contribution. the more she talks, the more she's helping him get re-elected. this is what frustrates every day americans. when you look at the op-ed in the "new york times" that she was talking about, that started this whole twitter commentary, it's not just the former dhs secretary. you are also seeing they were

talking about sean spicer, it went all the way back to henry kissinger. we don't need a black list. we don't need to harass people in restaurants or even after they have left their government jobs. we can disagree without being rude to each other. we can disagree while still being civil. let's have a debate of ideas. let's not attack and demonize each other. i think the radical left is getting angrier and angrier and more strident, then they step back and go well, why are politics so polarized, why can't both sides work together. it's because of comments like this. it is fine to debate president trump's immigration policies. you just had some democrats previous to me doing exactly that. it's fine. they don't have to agree with the border wall. they don't have to agree -- i think it makes sense to secure our borders. but it's one thing to disagree with somebody's policy, another thing to demonize people for serving our country, serving in these administration jobs. let's be clear, this is a slippery slope. it's not just about one person. the "new york times" op-ed started talking about sean spicer and others as well. we are getting to the point where the left wants to basically discredit anybody working in a republican

administration. again, this is the type of anger that sets off the populist backlash that elects people like donald trump. david: it's also a world view exemplified by another comment made by ilhan omar, another new member of congress, that was talking about 9/11. she said some people did something, something. that's the way she referred to the largest horrific attack against americans in the whole history of the republic on u.s. soil. she called it something. i mean, it's that kind of world view, how do you compromise with it to get policy done? >> look, two things. one, it's amazing to me that congresswoman omar still has her committee assignments after her not just once but repeated anti-semitic comments where she didn't back down and apologize and secondly, you are exactly right. that's one of the reasons you have liberals like howard schultz and michael bloomberg, that used to be far left democrats, now saying the

democratic party is going too far. those guys have condemned medicare for all as unrealistic. they have stood up to the far left in their party and said guys, we need to embrace the american dream. we are going to territory where we will alienate voters for a long time. this is not just about the next presidential election. i think we've got to win the debate of ideas and win over the moderate centrist democrats who are looking at their party thinking what's happening, how have our leaders gone so off the track. david: great to see you again. thank you for coming in. appreciate it. attorney general bill barr back on the hill today. what he just said that's getting a lot of people's attention, after this. so, jardiance asks... when it comes to type 2 diabetes, are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c, so i should be all set. right.

actually, you're still at risk for a fatal heart attack or stroke. even if i'm taking heart medicine, like statins or blood thinners? yep! that's why i asked my doctor what else i could do... she told me about jardiance. that's right. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. that's why the american diabetes association recommends the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? yeah- with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c.

ask your doctor about jardiance today.

wat t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. david: we have some breaking news on a fifth term for benjamin netanyahu in israel. israel's blue and white party leaders are now conceding defeat in israel's election, saying they will work against israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu from the opposition. they are accepting that position. now, netanyahu is on the verge

of becoming the longest serving prime minister of israel. back to capitol hill. attorney general bill barr assembling a team to investigate the russia probe, as he isn't ruling out spying during the 2016 campaign. listen. >> spying on a political campaign is a big deal. it's a big deal. i think spying did occur, yes. i think spying did occur. question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated. i'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated but i need to explore that. i think it's my obligation. congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane. david: meanwhile, president trump is pushing an investigation into the investigators. >> it was an illegal investigation. it was started illegally. everything about it was crooked. every single thing about it. there were dirty cops. these were bad people.

this was an attempted coup. this was an attempted take-down of a president. david: former justice department official under president obama, james trusty. good to see you. thank you for being here. appreciate it. >> thanks, david. david: so finding out whether the russia investigation was a hit job against the president, whether it was an attempt by you know the group, strzok, fusion gps, to first keep the president out of the office, they ginned this up, then to if he was lucky enough to be elected president, as he was, to get him out of office. it is important to investigate that, no? >> yeah, i really think it is. i would hope that for once, maybe, we can get beyond a political divide on every single law enforcement question. we probably won't. but you know, look, we had the two most sensitive high profile important public integrity type investigations going on a couple years ago. hillary's e-mail, russia collusion. i think we all have a right to

expect objectivity, professionalism and consistency in the approach. even from what we know now, which is hardly the full book, there looks to be very legitimate questions about all three of those goals and things that should be looked into. david: were you surprised to hear barr use the s word, spying, when referring to what was going on? >> well, you know, he started off sounding a little more sensational than he ended up. he said spying's a big deal but then went on to say but the question is whether there was predication, in other words, a legitimate law enforcement basis to use those tools. so i think he's actually being pretty measured and pretty kind of historic deep thinking about what we have an obligation to look at, damn the politics but looking at how the fbi and doj conducted itself. david: there are organizations that are in constant need in our history, history of the republic, of readjustment from time to time. sometimes, to use his expression, sometimes they get out of their lanes. sometimes they do go cross over into the political lane where they're not supposed to be. he wants to readjustment so they

get back in squarely in their lanes. that's legitimate, is it not? >> i think it is. again, it really shouldn't matter whether you are on the right side or left side of the spectrum. you should want law enforcement to be objective, not tarnished with these affairs, these text messages, these questionable uses of the fisa court. you know, again, whatever the bottom answer is in terms of the individuals that were involved in these investigations, i think it makes sense to have somebody give it a very hard, deep look to decide whether this is how we want law enforcement to act in the future, on sensitive big cases. david: and he seems to be the perfect person to do it. he just seems to have that perfect combination of experience, gravitas without necessarily being so full of himself in a deep state way that he won't uncover something if he stumbles across it. >> i think gravitas is the right word. a lot of us that are doj alum were hoping we would see a

serious guy with law enforcement chops that would get into that position. it's nothing against the fact politicians can gravitate to be attorney general but it's nice to see somebody who has a constitutional outlook at that job and will perform the right way, i think. david: the way the investigation, i know the i.g. is coming out with a report, but the way this report that he's going to do, it's not going to be in the limelight. that's not his style. it's not going to be grandstanded the way a lot of people do it. it's going to be a quiet investigation that will come to a specific conclusion. isn't that what we want? >> i think we want a deep dive that's evidence-driven, not opinionated, not subject to kind of all the sound bites of congress. so i think it's a good move. i would also just say, look, the inspector general has its place and can do some good things, but there are some institutional shortcomings. go back to this recent one, the ig didn't even look at the private text messages between lisa page and peter strzok. there are limits to how far an ig will ever go that a team of

professional hopefully objective prosecutors and investigators can get to. david: james trusty, always a pleasure to see you. thank you for coming in. appreciate it. >> good to see you. david: president trump in texas right now, where he's going to be announcing two new executive orders. this is all to speed up pipeline construction. former shell ceo john hofmeister on what this means for you at the pump, right after this. as a financial advisor, i tell my clients not to worry about changing their minds in retirement. you may have always imagined your dream car as something fast. then one day you decide it just needs to be safe enough to get her to college and back. principal. we can help you plan for that. ifor another 150 years. the fire going

♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

xfinity watchathon week. television is back! now through april 14, enjoy free access to the best shows and movies from hbo, showtime, epix and more. what! so, you can get more into what you're into. whether it's more laughs, oops. epic escapes, or high-flying thrills, get more into what you're into. just say "watchathon" into your x1 voice remote, or download the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week, free. now through april 14.

david: ten minutes out, in just moments investors may get clues in how long the fed's rate pause is going to be lasting. we will bring that to you at the top of the hour. meanwhile, president trump taking his energy push to texas. the president planning to sign new executive orders to speed up energy production across the country. to former shell oil president, john hofmeister, on what this action could mean for gas prices. john, i'm just wondering how much oil would be at now were it not for the president reversing the obama administration's constant punishment of carbon energy projects whether it was coal or fracking or whatever. what do you think? >> i think we would be in a better position, particularly in the distribution of energy, because what the anti-fossil

fuel crowd has figured out following obama's lead, when he spent eight years refusing to approve the keystone xl pipeline, that they learned the distribution process is really the linchpin of stopping the energy industry from evolving and developing. and so they have mimicked obama by attacking almost every pipeline imaginable that's being either expanded or built new across the country by exploiting ambiguities in the regulation or the differences between states. they get it wrapped up in court proceedings which as you know take not months, but years sometimes to resolve. david: i'm looking at an oil price now of $64 a barrel. i'm wondering how much do you think that would beishing the c energy industry. >> i think if we had left the carbon industry have at a normal

development of capability, we would probably be in the 50s for sure. we wouldn't be in the 60s and you know, we are headed for the 70s. it's pretty clear to me we are headed for the 70s. so we have added $10 to $15 a barrel by not enabling the infrastructure to be built. here's the whole cynical problem that the anti-fossil crowd has. the more they delay, the more they obstruct, the more they have americans pay higher costs for fuel, whether it's natural gas or whether it's gasoline, and they hurt the most vulnerable people in this country the most. to me, that is a despicable and cynical act on their part because there's no substitute for natural gas or oil in today's economy. we're not going to flip a switch and suddenly not use oil. so they are really obstructing the quality of life and the ability of everyday people in this country to have a normal

life. david: yeah. we should mention, by the way, you and i have talked about this, you are a big fan of alternative energy production, wherever you can find it, fine, but not at the expense of the millions of people who work in and the hundreds of millions of people who rely on carbon energy. >> over ten million people work in the industry. they're not going to go away. and yes, i'm a big fan and i currently am working in alternative energy, currently working on a lithium mine to make electric batteries. i think there's an energy transition under way. but it took a hundred years to build what we have. it's going to take 50 to a hundred years to make the energy transition take place. rushing it is not going to make it go faster. david: you have seen the time frame for the green new deal, i trust. >> oh, yes. ten years from now. i say that to my students. i teach young people at several universities and i say you know, get your airplane flights in early, because ten years from now, no more airplanes.

david: they are not just republicans who are against that. a lot of democrats now are lining up against this. john hofmeister, always good to see you. thank you very much for being here. appreciate it. >> thank you. david: thanks so much. uber is set to go public, and it is lowering expectations. we will tell you how much, right after this. . . . . including nasal congestion, which most pills don't.

and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. you may be learning about, medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours.

so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide.

hey! you still thinking about opening your own shop? every day. i think there are some ways to help keep you on track. and closer to home. edward jones grew to a trillion dollars in assets under care, by thinking about your goals as much as you do. david: we have breaking news on

uber. the ride-hailing service aiming to $100 billion valuation. sounds like a lot of money. below previous expectation of $120 billion. this may will be the reason why. uber's competitor lyft stumbled. look what is happening now. ipo was 72. it is at 62 now. just today alone down seven and a half%. tough day for lyft. uber looking at same problems. i'm back with 5:00 p.m. eastern with "bulls & bears." we hope to see you there. time to toss to my friend charles payne. charles: thank you very much, dave. we have a good show for you. good afternoon. i'm back, so is making money! stocks are like a coiled spring in anticipation of the fed minutes from the last policy meeting. there is a lot of fighting in there. investors want clarity there. we want to know influence of

politicians that hope that easy money lasts forever. bankers in the hot seat on capitol hill. we have live report. maxine waters versus the banks. let's go to jennifer schoenberger live at federal reserve for release of the fed minutes. >> fed officials reiterating they will remain patient making any changes to the benchmark interest rate as they assess the out look of the economy. charles, that was the major takeaway amongst internal discussions amongst fed officials at policy meeting three weeks ago. fed officials likely to remain on hold for this year, several officials say that the next move could be up or down depending on how the economic data evolves. several officials want to regularly review using the word patient to characterize monetary policy and some participants think if the economy improves later this year, a modest increase in the fed funds rate would be appropriate. fed officials are