stuart: blah blah. >> she wants them to suffer. stuart: wants them to sleep on the floor. she hates trump so much you can't give the kids a bed. that is how bad it is. neil, it is yours. neil: stuart, thank you very, very much what is happening on corner of wall and broad we're up 74 points. a lot has to do with optimism. maybe something will come ahead of the china trade talks at the g20 meeting. what is happening mnuchin comment, there is a math to completion, referring to a deal. markets pounced on that. promising tariffs u.s. is considering could be put off. there is a lot behind the scenes here. we're trying to get a handle what is happening there. who better to start us off, hillary vaughn at the white house with the latest. hey, hillary. reporter: neil, president trump says he has a plan b. if his meeting with president xi does not end in a deal?

>> my plan b, is that if we don't make a deal, i will tariff, maybe not at 25%, maybe a 10%, but i will tariff the rest of the $600 billion that we're talking about. so we have much more than $300 billion worth of products. reporter: exclusive interview with fox business's maria bartiromo president trump says he is happy where things are with china but it is possible that talks could convince him not to move forward with additional round of tariffs but trump says there is more on the table than just tariffs. he wants china to stop manipulating the value of their money. >> they devalue their currency like a ping-pong ball. they played the devaluation card for years, people don't call them on it, we're looking for calling them on it the first time. what is the difference, you call them on it, big deal. i want to have a good relationship with china. i have a great personal relationship with president she.

he is a friend of mine. i think he is fantastic. reporter: no matter what cops out of the face-to-face meeting in japan, he says china is more dep pratt to make a deal. president says companies are fleeing china, moving operations elsewhere to places like vietnam, but that may put vietnam at the top of president trump's target list for tariffs. he says vietnam is the single worst abuser of anyone. we'll see if there is any action to come on that. neil: all the companies that moved to vietnam to escape the china arrows, they're going to be penalized now? >> at least certainly what he hinted at. seems like he is not happy with the trade deal and relationship we have with vietnam either. neil: so many fights, so little time. former assistant second commerce

secretary under barack obama and market watcher keith fitz-gerald. nicole, seems to me the target keeps changing with the approach with china. it might all work out but a lot of companies that moved their operations or some of their operations to vietnam to deal with this just as a couple did not too long ago to mexico, then we started the mexican tariff threat. now we're starting a vietnam tariff threat, this is like a who is on first thing, this trade approach. what do you make of it? >> good to be with you, neil. this is so market distort tiff. our clients are telling us hard to do long term business planning with this "whack-a-mole" approach to trade policy. the tariff situation is really harmful in terms of supply chains. yes, companies are looking at alternatives in southeast asia including vietnam in order to escape the tariffs and it is just very expensive. it is hard to plan out long-term

business investment and strategy if you have to deal with these, with this kind of ping-pong effect. neil: you know, keith fitz gerald, people tell me, neil, there is method to this madness, sometimes i counter maybe it is madness. maybe there is no method to it? the president insist to the companies we're disproportionally dependent on these region. spread out a little bit in that region. the reward for many of them having done just that they are still going to get screwed? >> well, yes and no because the "whack-a-mole" approach is very disturbing. it can be potentially very expensive, but don't forget these companies deal with this every single day. they are global in nature. neil: they never dealt with something like. they never dealt with something like this from their own president. there might be an endgame here i'm not appreciating. keith, no one can tell me that

these guys who have to put billions of dollars online in factories, have to move them around like i do, vegetables on a plate, because i never eat the vegetables, i'm telling you, it is crazy. >> well it is crazy but again, what are we dealing with here? short term pain or long-term solution. the president -- neil: long-term solution to what? long-term solution to what? china, i get that. now we're incorporating vietnam. now we're incorporating our country. you don't have a long-term solution when you haven't identified what the problem is? >> i think they have identified in the president's defense, they have identified what the problem is, china unfairly manipulated the playing field. that comes with a lot of different challenges, there is no disputing that. having spent a lot of time in china this is par for the course. this is how they -- neil: i get it, not about china. nicole what i'm worried about, the president is muddying the waters a little bit.

the strategy on china might be perfectly sound. in your days in the prior administration this was of great consternation to you guys. now he widened this out to include other countries, muddy that message to the point the chinese saying good, have at eight? >> that is true. it is very expensive to move supply chains. our businesses have to do long-term planning. the only thing that i can think about just in terms of vietnam is perhaps some concern around transshipment, neil. neil: absolutely. >> there is a little bit of improvements made or value added to a part. it got made in vietnam stamp all of a sudden that could be part of it but i think we have to be very precise here. markets will be affected. business investment and business confidence will be affected. this isn't a game. we have to be very crisp in our messaging around what the problem is we're trying to solve. the problem quite frankly is,

structural changes such as protection of intellectual property and kind of leveling the playing field from a market access standpoint in china. that is what we're trying to solve. the question is, how do we get there. neil: it might all work out to your point, to keith's point, but it is confusing a lot of folks. unlike television anchor reading a prompter they have to put money on the table to do something. they can't, they really don't know which way is up. we'll see. guys, i want to thank you both. >> thank you. neil: meantime the senate is set to vote on that 4 1/2 billion dollar border bill. that will come up in couple hours. chad pergram is on capitol hill with the latest. reporter: couple of votes this afternoon. at 2:00 the first vote is on the house bill that the house moved yesterday which is different from the senate bill. that bill shifts more to the left. they will submit this to a 60-vote threshold, to demonstrate the not the support for that, it doesn't have the votes to break a filibuster. then they go to the bipartisan

bill which has 60 votes to break a filibuster, subject that to 60 votes, pass that this afternoon. what we have, neil, different bills, house bill, senate bill, they would not be in sync house majority leader, excuse me, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell was pretty critical of what the house done. the house has not made progress actually towards making law. we have waited long enough. we should not have to wait any longer. he called the house bill quote, resistance theater. this bill tilted to the left to get support of liberal democrats. now here is the problem, time. the reason the senate is trying to move so expeditiously, neil, they were afraid of getting jammed by the house of representatives, okay if we move our bill that appears to have the support of the president and can break a filibuster, maybe we can in turn jam the house, they would send that back to the house. the bottom line they're not in zing. if they get out of here by thursday for the 4th of july recess they have to move quickly. what could then happen, they

would send it back over to the house and a different coalition, presumably would vote for that, if that is the direction that house speaker nancy pelosi elects to go in. in other words she only lost four vote yesterday on her side. she would probably lose a lot more on the house bill. they would make up the difference with a lot of republicans. house minority leader kevin mccarthy, the house in fact should take the senate bill, neil. neil: we know, chad, let's say they are close to something, they don't have something, whether the president would delay again deportations he put off couple weeks? reporter: this bill does not directly address that. i spoke with henry cuellar, democratic congressman from texas, he said this is a appropriations bill, not a policy bill. this is unclear if it satisfies what the president said over the weekend delaying those raids. neil: thank you very much, chad pergram. if we needed anymore reminders how various markets are tied to the fate not only what is

happening in china, what is happening in iran, we have oil prices jumping again. lower supply numbers are a big factor in all of this. that philadelphia refinery fire, remember that one, maybe permanently shutting that down? that is having another effect as well. regular market factors are combining with political unpredictably to make a mess of things, after this. thanksno problem.. -you're welcome. this is the durabed of the all new chevy silverado. it looks real sturdy. -the bed is huge. it has available led cargo area lighting. lights up the entire bed. it even offers a built in 120 volt outlet. wow. plug that in for me. whoa! -holy smokes! -oh wow! and the all new silverado has more trim levels than any other pickup. whoa!

oh wow! -very cool. there's something for all of us. absolutely. it's time to upgrade. (laughter)

i kept putting it off...t get what was i thinking? ago. ok, mr. jones... we're all done. i told you it was easy. with life line screening, getting screened for unknown health conditions is so quick, painless and affordable, you'll wonder why you hadn't done it before. so if you're over age 50, call now and schedule an appointment near you. for just $149- a savings of over 50%- you'll receive a package of five screenings that go beyond your doctor's annual check-up. ultrasound technology looks inside your arteries for plaque

that builds up as you age and increases your risk of stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. so call today and start with a free health assessment to understand your best plan of action. so why didn't we do this earlier? life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. >> somebody said they don't want what happened in 2016 to happen in 2020. they don't want it to happen again, is that what you're referring to? >> let me tell you, they're trying to rig the election. that is what we should be looking at, not the witch-hunt, phony witch-hunt. >> is what technology companies doing to you, is that legal, are they breaking the law, mr. president? >> i don't know but tell you what, they should be sued. neil: president trump slamming google, other tech companies claiming they're suppressing his reach and could hurt him again.

"washington examiner" on all of this. what do you think of all this? >> look, neil, one thing there is the biggest takeaway here there is a lot of bipartisanship when it comes to breaking up these big tech companies. elizabeth warren said in march, facebook and other tech companies that exceed $25 billion in ad revenue should be broken up. google, for example, owned by alphabet, has faced antitrust issues before. they had to pay a $1.7 billion fine to the european union of the fact that the department of justice, rumored in the past year to be possibly opening an antitrust probe into google, that would just be a new frontier and a new country obviously which they will probably face maybe additional fines. neil: but wasn't the issue with a lot of these guys, facebook included, whether intentionally, unintentionally were providing entity for all the fake entities were actually helping donald trump at the time? >> and that is the thing.

we have to understand, do the american people want a lot of this control going to these big tech companies? and there is sort of been this, cognitive dissonance to say the russians meddled in the 2016 election, that they had a huge impact on the vote. now they're saying here, at least some liberals are saying these big tech companies might not actually have a big impact in 2020. that is what seems to be the root issue here. the google executive was videotaped saying in the context of saying elizabeth warren is being misguided breaking up the big tech companies, it makes it harder for big companies like google to stop a quote, unquote, trump situation in 2020. that is sort of the issue here. that is kind of interesting to see how people are reacting to it and trump might get more allies from the other side than he thinks. neil: i think you're right about that. also the notion that it hurt him, when in retrospect we know

enough from the mueller report, when it came to that stuff, the russians were very, very successful leveraging that to hurt hillary clinton and help him. it's a little weird. >> it's a kind of a weird disconnect. trump is probably on to something that google and other big tech companies are policing conservatives a little more harshly than they are liberals. neil: both sides should appreciate importance getting a handle on that now, regardless whether you're a republican or democrat to your point. thank you very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: i think tonight is the first democratic debate. i might have have heard a thing or two about it. liz warren, she is the star of the stage, at least if you believe the poll numbers. remember some other key players are tomorrow night including joe biden. this is her make-or-break moment. what do you think she does with it?

that move us forward. every day, invesco combines ideas with technology, data with inspiration, investors with solutions. because the possibilities of life and investing are greater when we come together. ♪ who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go. expedia. so ...how are you feeling - on a scale of one to five? wait... when it comes to feelings, it's more like five million.

there's everything from happy to extremely happy. there's also angry. i'm really angry, clive! actually, really angry. thank you. and seat 36b angry. you're clive owen. and you're barefoot. yeah... there's also apprehension. ...regret... ...relief. oh and there's empathy... ah, i got this in zurich! actually, what's the opposite of empathy? but what if your business could understand what your customers are feeling... and then do something about it. you can turn disappointment into gratitude. clive, you got to try this. i can't i'm working. turn problems into opportunities. thanks drone. change the future of your business change the whole experience. alright who wants to go again? i do! i do! i have a really good feeling about this.

>> i have the right to demote him. i have the right to fire him. but i have the right -- >> is that what you're think about doing? are you considering that right now? >> i never suggested i was going to do that. i do have the right to do it but let me just tell you he has to lower interest rates. neil: just want to make something clear so we're all on the same page here, the president does not have the right to fire or demote the federal reserve chairman. end of story. that is just the deal. he might not like it. maybe has different interpretation or different group of people he is talking to, but we looked into this issue exhaustively. he does not have the right to fire a federal reserve chairman. he has right to choose him. has a right not to renominate him but he can't fire the guy. he can't even demote the guy. so he is again stuck with the guy. just want that out there. charlie gasparino. >> like you're stuck with me.

neil: i know. there are windows in the contract. >> he does have kind of a, can he get rid of him for cause? neil: for cause though. it has to be something malfeasance, all that. >> cause has a legal definition. neil: but it is not because you don't appreciate his interest rate policy. we got so much on this president, can't, unless this guy goes off on a shane saw murdering -- chainsaw murdering spree it will not happen but i digress. >> suppose he is reckless with interest rate policy? neil: that is maybe for lawyers to argue. i talked to many fine lawyers that he can't do it. we keep -- >> we keep, he keeps perpetuating the myth. speaking about reckless, t-mobile, sprint merger, remind me after shakespearean sonnet, tomorrow, tomorrow. neil: i find it more newsworthy to you quote shakespeare. >> to day-to-day to the recorded time. neil: wow.

hickory, dickory dock. >> this is 11th grade english teacher. neil: yes, yes. >> but anyway, made us all memorize that. it still sticks with me. here is where we are right now. it is imminent my day, when i say imminent the decision. doesn't look like they will approve it with massive conditions. other thing to keep in mind. >> if they approve it, is that the end of it? >> the states could sue. but it is very hard to sue a case where, there has been concessions, getting a federal judge to unwind the thing when the doj and fcc says it okay. it will not be easy thing. if they get rid of another spectrum to create another carrier, that is what they're working with dish. we hear others are involved. here is the latest we understand, p.e. firms, private equity firms are expressing interest in spectrum to do something, create that fourth carrier. these p.e. firms are trying to

set up meetings with doj anti-trough to guest their nose in the door. he doesn't have to, he meaning, makan delrahim doesn't have to just deal with charlie ergen, the dish chairman, who is notorious dragging things out. neil: he had recommendation from the staff, don't let this happen. >> he can ignore the staff. neil: is there precedent? >> yes. he has recommendation from larry kudlow and the white house see this goes through because we think this is stronger company even though there might be -- they don't believe the antitrust implications 4-3 they don't believe will lead to mass price increases and stronger company with. neil: okay. >> doj is ad veries having pe involved in this. they would like a telecom company like dish. that is their preferred choice. we should point out dish continues to meet with doj over these negotiations and again, here is the one thing i will say as it drags on, there comes a point, someone like deutch telecom, majority of t-mobile,

germans say, screw this, i'm out of here. this is such an insane process. i'm done. neil: it has lingered on forever. >> i don't think it is going to happen yet, there is lots of rumors they're starting to get ants in the pants over this thing. so again, you know, i think it could be imminent. one other thing i should point out what we hear from doj that they can make announcement on this without the divestiture done. like they can, if they're in the middle of negotiations with charlie ergen and dish, they feel it is moving that way, they can come out say contingent on this deal working out we're going to approve the deal. we're not going to sue. that could happen, just so you know. you don't need the deal for the announcement to happen. that is one the things that kind of makes you think, if there is, some momentum they could come out this week or maybe today, or whatever, come out, here is where we stand.

>> what does your gut say? >> i think they're likely to approve it. my one thing, if they're dragging out this so long, i worry, not worry, but obviously deutch telecom is someone, a company that would walk away. i don't think sprint would walk away because they're the weakest of all, they need the merger. deutch telecom might say, this is enough. by the way they're putting too much conditions on us. that is one thing i think is an existential threat to the deal. again they have the broad outlines of an approval with selling spectrum, whoever buys it. this is the new thing with the p.e. firms. doj is loathe to deal with p.e. firms like you're loathe to deal with me. neil: i love to deal with you. you're the best in the world. >> i could fire him. neil: making nasty comments on my president's thoughts on the fed chairman. edward writes, hey, you fat clueless, i cannot repeat that word. >> did he really? neil: you should know the president fired half his cabinet, he does have the right. i don't know where to begin with you. the fed chairman is not part of

his cabinet. an independent agency. the president chooses the fed chairman but short of him going on a murderous rampage or doing something really criminal, if you don't like the interest rate policy you cannot reappoint the guy but you can't fire the guy and demote the guy, those comments about my being fat, hurt my feelings. >> all 1.1 of them. neil: yes. after this. ♪ limu emu & doug what do all these people have in common, limu? [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ]

[ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

neil: all right. way fair allow, workers are planning a walk out. they're angry the company is looking to sell beds to border facilities. their rap, why should we feed the beast. they protests the company providing beds for the government and these kids. but the company is letting them do it. so give them, you know, a tip of the hat there. 2020 democrats are calling to decriminalize border crossings. among things teed up for the big debate. kristina partsinevelos at the debate in miami with much more. hey, kristina. reporter: hey, neil. 20 hopefuls over course of two nights randomly split. 30 seconds for rebuttals, 60 seconds for anticipates. it will move fast. you have elizabeth warren, beto

o'rourke, cory booker. night number two we're expecting bernie sanders, joe biden, mayor pete, even kamala harris thrown into the mix. this is 10 and 10 for first night. this is first of six for 2019. you will have six more for 2020. the big question for our viewers what would this potentially mean for your money in the future? the director of washington research says anti-big bank rhetoric is expected with some candidates calling for break up of the banks. we talked a lot about this in the news. kbw analyst says silicon valley might take more of a rhetorical beating than wall street. we're overall hear more about spending, policy programs, "medicare for all," "green new deal," how they plan to pay for it. increase corporate taxes, increase capital gains, increase income taxes on wealthy. neil, overall, i'm sure we will start to see more after divide over policy across all

democratic contenders. back to you. neil: sounds expensive, kristina. we'll see what happens. thank you very much. meantime the border patrol agents are facing a surge of underage migrants. that created a whole new controversy whether they're up to helping these kids. this is not what they signed up for. this is gotten to be a problem exponentially gotten bigger and bigger and sidetracked what ostensibly is the national border goal here, to deal with those trying to cross the border, not to babysit them. national border patrol council president, brandon judd is with us. brandon, as horrific some of these images are, these kids, 20, 21-year-old kid, border was, saying i don't know how to change a diaper, i don't know how to do this. i'm understanding his plight but i'm thinking about it, wait a minute, this isn't in what he signed up for. so these guys can't seem to win here. what do you make of it?

>> well, first off you have to understand that these are the facilities that congress has given to us. if congress doesn't step up to the plate to give us better facilities, and better resources this is what we're dealing with. to take law enforcement officers out of the field to do humanitarian issues, if you will, it is not, it is not our job, first and foremost. our job is to be out in the field. neil: whose job is it, brandon. i'm sorry, whose job is it? i flip around, watch all the news, i kind of try to get a sense politically where they're all coming from. i hope that isn't the case, invariably it is through a political prism, even here. so i have a hard time understanding then whose job it would be to deal with this unusual influx ever children just over actually the past eight months? that is a recent phenomenon for which it seemed like, you guys were unprepared. it is understandable because

this was almost unprecedented. so the numbers dwarf what the obama administration had to deal with. so what was the fall back even then? who took care of this issue even then? who is maybe shirking their duties now? >> well we took care of the issue back in 2014. why it is so frustrating to border patrol agents today. we should have known, we should have expected this was going to happen again. if we have put in place the procedures and policies to deal with this, knowing what we knew in 2014, we wouldn't have this issue. but neil, the main point is, we have people that are dying, trying to cross the border. you have those pictures of those two individuals in the river. if we would have had our agents in the field, those individuals most likely would not be dead today, but because we're taking all of our agents out of the field, we're putting them in processing centers, we're creating those gaps. these individuals are trying to

cross the border. if we were in the areas where we're supposed to be, those deaths wouldn't happen. this is, this is an issue that is supposed to be dealt with by health and human services. because they don't have resources, because congress has not given them the resources, we're doing a job we're not trained to do, we're not prepared to do, frankly we shouldn't be doing. neil: so when i heard earlier that a lot of these detention facilities that are the source of a lot of this frustration, some were built under the obama administration to deal at the time with these crowds, even though they were, i'm told short-lived, we obviously were responding to a wave at the time of unaccompanied children. the obama administration said, we would separate them for a little bit to understand whether the adults were with were their parent, for that matter they were being pushed by all sorts of nefarious folks. so we apparently addressed that

but how did it, and when did it get so crazy to the point that, there are thousands of them now? i mean how did that happen? >> this has been building up. again you've got to go back to 2014 when it first started. this has been building up for a long time since then. it took off, it skyrocketed in the late 2017 when it skyrocketed. neil: right. >> that is when congress was pushing back on every single measure president trump was trying to get. congress hasn't funded the government even though they saw that problem was increasing day by day, month by month and frankly year by year. neil: so brandon, who would make the decision -- >> we're at the situation. neil: i'm so rude to you. who would make the decision, brandon, to say you can't have a any of this stuff, who would make that decision what would behind isn't i get what you're saying border patrol folks, that

is not their job. they're suddenly thrust in it. they don't know what to do. a lot of guards we're talking about, i talked to one, he would buy stuff himself for some of these kids, but who makes the decision, no toothbrush for you, no soap for you, who was making that? >> that's not a decision is being made. first off, neil, those stories are being blown out of proportion. i spoke with several agents that are at that facility yesterday, to get the ground truth. for the most part those stories have been blown completely, totally out of proportion. now the border patrol did the rye thing, they did move people out due to complaints attorneys and doctors went in and viewed facilities, but fact of the matter is, resources we're given what we have to deal with. neil: right. >> the ultimate decision whether or not we have soap or whatnot, that comes from our agency, that comes from the border patrol, cpb, frankly, dhs.

neil: got it. thank you very much, brandon judd. one of the things we'll try to do on the show, try to take the political extremism and heat out of this. we heard comment about tragic story of father and daughter, politician saying, president trump, their blood is on your hands. where are we going? was it intentional border guards are targeting kids and trying to kill them? let's get serious. conversely. think about the responsibilities that they have, how some of these additional responsibilities were not originally in their line of work. we can get past the politics of all this and just talk about solving the problem. all of a sudden with concentration camp talk, blood on their hands talk, how do you get anything done in that environment? it is ridiculous. more after this. ♪

there are roadside attractions. and then there's our world-famous on-road attraction. the 2019 glc. lease the glc 300 suv for just $459 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

is where people first gathered to form the stock exchangeee, which brought people together to invest in all the things that move us forward. every day, invesco combines ideas with technology, data with inspiration, investors with solutions. because the possibilities of life and investing are greater when we come together. ♪

neil: bitcoin making a lot more coin at the corner of wall and broad. how about topping $13,000? it is up close to 200% this year as a lot of people think facebook with talks even more are getting into this kind of business, cryptocurrency, maybe this time it has some sticking power. we shall see. boeing ceo dennis muilenburg is saying at a conference at aspen going on the company will turn things around. jeff flock has the latest. hey, jeff. reporter: i wouldn't want to be dennis muilenburg today, because he got all the hard questions today, the the first one was, wy are you submitting to this? he said i think it is important we can talk. the questions came from mike allen, founder, executive editor of "axios." one of the questions he answered, one, have you fired anybody as a result of 737 plane crashes. he responded not specifically,

people have been indeed removed as a result of it. asked if another crash could potentially destroyed boeing, if he lived in fear of that? muilenburg said, no, i do not live in fear. hoped by the summer they would get the 737 maxes back in the air but he acknowledged it could take all of the fleet back in the air. on the question of litigation, he said perhaps 10 years of litigation is in the offing for boeing. they're discussing reimbursing airlines for losses around grounding of the 737 maxes but he said, that is not my focus. my focus is on safety and trust. that is how he put it. >> it will take some time. as i said earlier we regret the impact it had to the airline customers and to the public's confidence in the airplane. that has been a real impact and it will take some time for us to earn and reearn the trust of the public and it is not going to happen overnight. it will be important we get

airplanes back up and flying safely. over time confidence will be rebuilt but it has to be rebuilt on the fact we're flying and flying safely. reporter: speaking of built, they are still making 737 maxes at the rate of 42 a month. they're now parking them, pictures of the employee parking lot in the factory out in washington, kind of stacking up. as to the president's tweet about potentially rebranding, some advice, perhaps you remember, you ought to rebrand the aircraft, change the name of it. muilenburg responding to that, it is not going to happen. listen. >> this is not, this is not a marketing or branding exercise. i know that's important and certainly it affects the public view. the most important thing we can do is ensure safety. we'll stay very focused on that i don't see a need to change the brand or change the name of the airplane. reporter: lastly, boeing's stock is up a little bit today.

neil, he used the word humble at least five times by my count you know, i think this is, it's a strong company. obviously you want to be confident, but humble confidence was the phrase that he used. i think perhaps entirely appropriate. neil. neil: jeff, thank you very, very much. jeff flock. meanwhile apple is acquiring a self-driving car startup. digital trends editor-in-chief jeremy kaplan. this is just the latest example of the future of this driverless car thing here but, for apple, it's a little weird, but what do you make of it? >> it feels strange because apple is such a consumer company. neil: right. >> you have to ask yourself, are we getting self-driving cars from apple? is apple getting into automotive manufacturing industry. let me give you a hard and resounding no. the vision here is not to start producing cars because that is a

very challenging world. the vision is the company to build the platform that powers self-driving cars of the future. to that end they acquired drive.ai. they have a lot of smart folks dog that tough. it is talent acquisition. neil: future, the way the world is going to go, all major auto companies have divisions devoted to this, i'm just wondering, if they're missing something? or maybe more to the point i am? is there really the consumer demand to justify this? is it the old sort of you know, analogy, if you build it they will come? what do you think? >> that is a good question. there is a lot of consumer nondemand. i think consumers are frankly terrified about the concept of self-driving cars. it will take time to get there. let's be honest. another point to keep in mind, neil. we're not talking about the jeep

wrangler or nissan sentra. the immediate future of self-driving cars, a taxi takes you home from the airport. call for a car to get you from the house to the mall. or shuttle around in the mall, future of self-driving vehicles like that. the company that powers that, has a lot a power. you're in the car driving around the mall, neil, you have a few minutes, can i play easy listening tunes because i have your i pad account here? there is lot of power that software can provide there. neil: if it knows how to stop at dunkin' donuts, home run. >> we're not quite there yet. neil: thank you, jeremy. i always learn a lot. >> a pleasure, neil. neil: i think iran told the president of the united states to shove it. now what?

neil: oil prices higher fenn. we're up at 60 bucks a barrel. a lot has to do with that philadelphia refinery, remember the one that caught fire? it will be permanently shut down after that. they don't know what in its place will come up with, refinery for oil and gasoline, that is very popular along the northeast part of the united states. so we'll see. similarly the president is weighing in on a deal with iran, whether it happens or not. if it doesn't happen, it is fine with him. says he has unlimited time. obviously the two are not seeing eye-to-eye on this issue. that obviously adds to the tension, maybe if there are no talks, more volatility. on top of the refinery stuff. a mess. anyway, iran is speeding up uranium enrichment, that we do know. defense priorities director benjamin friedman on what that

could mean to the white house's strategy. ben, what do you think? >> i think what iran is doing, tomorrow they will violate the limit in the iran deal on the amount of lower enriched uranium they can possess and later, july 7th, they will enrich past what the amount on the deal, they will sell us back what they thought they sold us in the iran deal. they give up the program, we relax sanctions. we canceled the check. they are bargaining, desperate to get the economic benefits they thought they would get before we pulled out of the deal, reimposed sanctions. neil: there might be a strategy to being crazy here, with half our naval fleet it seems in the neighborhood, the fact that it got the whole world staring them down, pretty much against them, increasingly, and they got unpredictable president of the united states who might have them on a short leash now, gave them the benefit of the doubt,

slapping them back in the face what makes them respond the way they respond? they have tens of billions of dollars signing off on the nuclear deal. maybe they're still using that. maybe someone is proproviding backdoor cash or support, something has to explain what is mad behavior. what is it? >> they're shut out of international markets. their economy has gone into recession of they have all sorts of economic problems. they're looking for a way out of that. i disagree a little bit. the united states is certainly ready to confront them, but the rest of the world is not with us on that, hardly anyone. they are going along with the sanctions because we're forcing them through secondary sanctions but the iranians are trying to pressure primarily the europeanss to figure out some way to keep the business with iran selling oil, buying oil. neil: that is what is keeping them in our face? they think they have support and

this will not go anywhere? because the behavior is pretty bellicose. >> they have done bellicose things. they are responsible for blowing up ships, drone shoot-down, i don't think enriching past the limit in the jopca, that bellicose we pulled out of the deal and they're not getting the benefits they got from signing into the dial. so it is hard for me to say that is some wild and crazy act. it seems, the situation we pushed them into. neil: interesting. so, the president promised that you know, he might not be so nice next time, paraphrasing here, he wouldn't be able i guess to strengthen military based on the drones since he didn't want to respond based on the drones since he was told it could kill 150 iranians, so it would take another provocative act to get a military response or what? >> yeah. i mean, i'm concerned that this movement by iran to violate the

limits in the deal will provide a pretext for the administration, hawks in the administration, john bolton, whispering in president trump's ear, people who want to bomb, saying go ahead and do it. this is them restarting their program. i wish they wouldn't do it but i think that we should, we have to look out for ourselves and say look, bombing is not going to accomplish anything here. it will not be a quick, anti-septic thing like a lot of people promise, it will be a mess. i think it makes things worse at the end. neil: benjamin, thank you very, very much. >> thank you. neil: back to china, where things stand. there was optimism going into trading when treasury secretary steve mnuchin appearing on cnbc said there is a path to completely. now a lot of people read into that, oh, we'll complete it pretty soon. cold water has been doused on that since but you never know. the two leaders meet in a matter of days and everything could be on the table or nothing is on the table, after this.

has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

♪ at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. on a scale of one to five? one to five? it's more like five million. there's everything from happy to extremely happy. there's also angry. i'm really angry clive! actually, really angry. thank you. but what if your business could understand what your customers are feeling... and then do something about it. turn problems into opportunities. thanks drone. customers into fanatics change the whole experience. alright who wants to go again? i do! i do! i have a really good feeling about this.

my plan b is that if we don't make a deal, i will tariff and maybe not at 25%, but maybe at 10% but i will tariff the rest of the $600 billion that we're talking about. so we have much more than $300 billion worth of products. neil: you know, peter navarro has discussed this very possibility when he was talking with charles payne last week, the idea that the 25% tariff might be moved down to 10% if it looks like things are making progress on the trade front between the two countries. sure enough, the president echoing that today talk withing m with maria bartiromo. the treasury secretary of the united states indicating there is a path to complete it. i guess what's left out is when. jackie deangelis on what we could be seeing ahead of the big meeting of the two economic

powers gathering in japan in a matter of days. reporter: good afternoon, neil. this is a big meeting between the two presidents at the g20. it's basically like the super bowl in some ways for investors. they have been waiting on this, speculating on what could happen for a couple of months now. basically the expectation is not for a deal to be reached this week. that's probably not realistic. however, good will expressed between the leaders gets that conversation going again with fresh parameters and the market thinks that that's a great thing. when you think about it, what was the market really worried about. it was the fed, it was the border, the southern border and tariffs on mexico and china. so two of those worries have been eased somewhat. china is the one lingering problem at this point. in his interview with maria that you referenced this morning, the president also talked about china and trade saying that he was optimistic, saying that they want to make a deal but they want to make it more than he does, so they are definitely motivated hoaere.

chip stocks are moving higher in today's session, driving the dow up just about 90 points after micron beat earnings. the company was able to stay above water despite tensions with china and its ties to huawei. huawei of course, a customer that represented 13% of micron's revenue in the first six months of the fiscal year. the market is pretty optimistic right now. it will be watching very closely. neil: to put it mildly. chinese consumers are very, very cautious. demand is slowing way way down and investments in this country slowing even faster. it is interesting that the chinese had been retrenching and if you think about it, before a lot of these tariffs already in place have had a chance to take effect, are they just sort of battening down the hatches or what? >> well, so the chinese economy has been slowing for basically more than a year, well before

the tariffs started, and you know, so the chinese story is a bigger story than just the tariffs but certainly the trade tensions come at a time when consumers have been retrenching and certainly the policy makers in china have been looking for ways to stimulate the economy, but they have been limited in what they can do because the fed until recently was actually in a rate rising mode. of course, that's now all changing with the recent pivot. but so this has been a global sort of synchronized slowdown and china has very much been at the center of it. neil: you know, the president laments the fact that, well, he doesn't really like chairman jerome powell. take that as a given. but particularly that he's not cutting interest rates, would help make our currency weaker, would improve our trade posture, says every country worth its salt is pretty much doing that, that's their strategy for improving their trade situation, et cetera, and we are getting

the shorter end of the stick with that. what do you think? >> i do think that sort of competitive devaluations among all the currencies is part of the way to kind of keep a competitive edge. i totally, you know, understand that line of reasoning and so a stronger dollar generally is not a good thing for sort of global capital flows. it tends to tighten up financial conditions, it makes the cost of capital more expensive, especially in emerging markets. so i see that. but the fed has now indicated that it is poised to ease rates and the market is putting 100% odds on a july rate cut, then possibly another one in september, or maybe even a double rate cut in july, although i don't think that's as likely. so that should, all else being equal, put some downward pressure on the dollar and we have been seeing that in recent weeks already since the last fomc meeting. neil: do you find any more

ominous signs in what's been happening with interest rates because this is, as you accurately pointed out ahead of many people, i might point out, this is a global phenomenon and normally that presages a slowdown, perhaps even worse. play it out for me. >> this is about demographics and debt. the u.s. of course has a lot of debt, has an aging population, but the same is true in europe, in japan, in china. so this is a global phenomenon. when you look at interest rates, the u.s. ten-year is at 2%, $13 trillion of global debt is trading at a negative yield, i think demographics producing consistently low inflation, well below the fed and other central banks' targets, is part of that story. so this is a global phenomenon and a combination of debt and demographics does produce slower growth and does drive down interest rates. that's what we're seeing. neil: thank you. good seeing you again. >> thanks, neil.

neil: president trump is still pounding that rate cut. take a look or listen. >> we are taking money out and we're raising interest rates. it's insane. maria: so are you -- >> -- if we have raised them half, just half, and if he would not have done the quantitative tightening, our market would have been up another 10,000 points. neil: another 10,000 points. i don't know about that. but i do want to get the read from former minnesota republican governor and presidential candidate, former financial services roundtable president, tim pawlenty. governor, always good to have you. the president said had the fed not overhiked, the dollar would be up 10,000 more points than it is. do you agree? >> the dow loves lower interest rates and loose monetary policy, no question. how much it would have gone up or stayed up, who knows. as a hyper technical matter, the fed has a dual mandate of employment and inflation. if you look at just those factors technically, you could

be arguing about whether interest rates should be lowered or not. as a practical matter, for all the reasons your previous guest noted, slowing global growth, manufacturing sector starting to slow down, increasing volatility in employment and labor markets and the trade problem, i think they are going to reduce rates. neil: the president has been really relentless in his attacks on jerome powell. what do you think of that? >> well, i suppose it's within his purview to express his opinion about that, but i think we have to be careful as a country not to be politicizing the fed. we want to hold them accountable, that's for sure, but if you let the politicians be totally in charge of the fed policy because of the whims of political pressure, that's concerning. but i do think the president has a point, which is given what's going on globally, we should reduce rates. neil: all right. if we do not, you know, the original impetus of this was we were targeting mexico. remember, to do something about

the border issues and all the illegal immigrants, and we were using trade as a lever to get something, and the federal reserve, that was the first time the federal reserve said we kind of have your back if this leads to a slowdown, i'm oversimplifying it. if we get a deal with china, then we don't need a rate cut, right? >> again, there's the practical part of this and hyper technical part of it. there is this stubborn thing called the law and the law as it relates to the fed directs them to focus on employment and inflation, as your listeners know. again, on a hyper technical matter, you could argue the rate cut isn't necessary. but as a practical matter, a political matter, the system is run by and influenced by humans and they are getting a lot of pressure for all the reasons noted to cut rates and i think they're going to do it. neil: the president hinted today that he doesn't like trade policies out of vietnam, might target them with tariffs and all the rest. these are the same locales that a lot of businesses fled to to open up manufacturing centers and the rest in light of what's

going on in china, just like we had a couple of weeks back, the same ones who moved to points in mexico to deal with what could potentially happen in china, then we had that brief period of the mexico threat of tariffs. there's really no place to hide for businesses not quite convinced the president isn't just shooting at everyone. >> well, good for the president, though. it was long overdue to call out the trade cheaters. and the old way wasn't working, more of the same wasn't working and you don't want to overplay your hand in this regard but i give him a lot of credit for the courage and the heat he takes to stand up to china as one example. mexico, too, and others, perhaps. but for a long time, they got away with cheating. and doing things that were not appropriate and finally somebody, finally somebody with strength said i'm going to hold you accountable and i give him credit, strong credit for doing that and i think he's going to get some good results. neil: but he also told these

companies that were overly dependent on or did way too much business in china to sort of spread the wealth a little bit, even advised them, what about vietnam, what about some of these other locales so they did that. now they're at the receiving end of what could be still new tariffs on them. >> yeah. we'll see whether that actually happens or not but i also think if you're running a large global enterprise and you base a large investment decision on something other than a concrete commitment that's in law or in contract just by the comments of a politician, i don't think you're being too wise. maybe they shouldn't have been betting the farm, so to speak, on political pronouncements. neil: that's a profound comment. governor, i notice in your state and in a lot of other states the president flipped to the republican in 2016, he trails by double digits in some cases. polls are polls. this early they don't mean anything, but it is surprising, is it not, given the strength of

the recovery, given the strength of what's been going on in the region, that he would be under that kind of pressure. what's going on? >> probably not too surprising in minnesota. it's a state with the longest unbroken streak of voting for democrat for president going all the way back to nixon, of any state in the country including hawaii, california, massachusetts, vermont and other liberal havens. but what's going on is obviously his numbers have kind of been between the high 30s and low 40s. they haven't broken out so he hasn't been able to expand his support base. that's concerning but on the other hand, the democrats don't have their candidate yet so you can say, you know, have a referendum on trump per se, but once you have a democrat candidate, particularly if that person is a little goofy, then he's got some running room in swing states. that won't crystallize until next spring. neil: governor, always good catching up with you. >> thank you, neil. neil: tim pawlenty. a lot more coming up, including out of the blue possible shock

waves from bob mueller's public testimony to no less than two house committees next month. after this. is where people first gathered to form the stock exchangeee, which brought people together to invest in all the things that move us forward. every day, invesco combines ideas with technology, data with inspiration, investors with solutions. because the possibilities of life and investing are greater when we come together. ♪

but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up

just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands? i think it's very important the american people hear from mr. mueller as to what he did find, what the results of that two-year investigation were, and not have to rely on the misinformation spread by the attorney general. neil: all right. jerry nadler, guy who runs the house judiciary committee, sharing the information that bob mueller is going to testify to his committee and another in the house next month. to the "wall street journal" editorial board member. how significant is this, how potentially market-moving, do you think? >> i don't know about market moving. look, i think it may be a disappointment to some people. the purpose of putting bob mueller up there is the democrats hope he's going to repeat all the things saying i couldn't find that the president

was not guilty of a crime which is not his job, and kind of give impetus to the idea that he committed obstruction of justice and that he should be impeached. the danger is republicans get to ask questions, too, and there are a lot of embarrassing questions for mr. mueller. why did he pick a team of all democrats. why didn't he take up the dossier which is so discredited. these are tougher questions that haven't gotten as much play. it gives republicans a stage to ask them. i personally wish we had moved past bob mueller and i'm more interested in the pending i.g. report from justice and so forth, but remember the democrats want him up there. neil: you are referring to the secretary general report and how all this was handled. i'm wondering, too, it all comes down to the really big, big picture of changing minds or whether it potentially could. i'm always of the belief if you like donald trump, it probably won't change your opinion. if you dislike donald trump, it

probably won't change your opinion. there's something in it for everybody. there's something in it there that will very likely change few minds. what do you think? >> i agree with that, although i think there is a potential to get more people to dislike mr. mueller. look, i'm against special counsel as a rule. it doesn't mean i think that the individuals are corrupt, but i think he has a lot to answer for. look, a prosecutor is supposed to make his statement in his filings. his job is not to find people's innocence and declare it. he also has these embarrassing things, you know, he implied without saying that the reason he didn't indict was because of standard justice department guidelines against that but the attorney general says he asked him and says that wasn't his reason. if it were his reason, he should have put it in. i'm not sure that it's going to be a good day for mr. mueller. neil: you know, i respect your opinion.

i just want to get your thoughts on the president continuing to rip jerome powell, telling again that he can fire the guy or demote the guy. he has that power. i don't see anywhere that he does. but your thoughts? >> yeah. look, the president does this to a lot of people, right. people that actually work for him. i'm not sure how productive it is. i think it actually makes it harder for the fed chairman to do what president trump wants, even if he believed that was the right thing to do. the president's entitled to his opinion. i'm not sure it's helpful to do it the way that he does. neil: he can't fire him. he can't demote him. he can choose not to reappoint him. certainly barring something egregious or even criminal, the guy is there. >> right. you're stuck with him. neil: try to make do with it. >> that's not president trump's way. he doesn't always make do. neil: all right. very diplomatically said. thank you very much, my friend.

>> thank you. neil: guy's a genius. he knows this stuff in and out. in the meantime, the nsa is at it again. it's like no one even noticed. wait a minute, you're collecting phone records all over again? yeah. after this. the mercedes-benz of tomorrow will transform not just the automobile, but mobility itself. an autonomous-thinking vehicle protecting those inside and out. and it's the mercedes-benz of today that will help us get there. the 2019 e-class, with innovations that will change the way we drive from this day forward. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional lease and financing offers. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

look limu. a civilian buying a new car.ug let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance,

so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now

during our lowest prices of the season. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. it's the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is now $1299, save $400. plus, 0% interest for 36-months. ends saturday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. neil: the "wall street journal" is reporting yet another overcollection of data by the nsa. we want to weigh in on this. we have various categories of people here at fox. we have smart, really smart, and then wicked really smart. in that last category, judge andrew napolitano on this data collection thing. this, i cannot believe. >> this is not the half of it. this is a facade in which the nsa says they only collected meta data, the who, what, where

and when of the phone call. they have collected the actual phone calls. they have the digital version of every phone call and every keystroke made by anyone in the united states of america. by suggesting they only have the meta data, they are trying to dispel from us the idea that they truly are spying on us. neil: when you say everyone, what is -- who is included in this group? >> all electronic and digital information passed through fiberoptic cable into the united states, out of the united states or within the united states, is captured by the nsa24/7. neil: they said they wouldn't do that. >> this is a listening device. it's also a tracking device. i doubt they are zeroing in on me because i'm sitting next to you. if gasparino were here, they would definitely be zeroing in. but they have the ability -- i know -- neil: you know who was very cynical about it, you at the

time. >> the people that i speak to, some of whom are former nsa people who devised the software they say the nsa has been abusing tell me it's every keystroke and it's 24/7. i'm happy the "wall street journal" printed that because it triggers you and me and people like us talking about it. it is a small percentage that they had revealed of what they are actually doing. neil: why did they gather it up? what do they do, what are they doing? >> they believe it's easier to capture everything and they believe -- neil: to what end? they are sitting on this pile of stuff. >> their stated end is to keep us safe but we know it doesn't work because they have too much data to sift through. every once in awhile, when one of these horrible mass killings happens, then they go back and find out it was there but they didn't see it until too late because they are gathering too much information about us. neil: what happens now? >> the president and -- might be this one, because he himself has

been victimized by this stuff, will keep them in line. the nsa is in the military. they work directly for the president as commander in chief. he can clip their wings with a phone call. neil: amazinamazing. san francisco now is banning e-cigarettes. can they do that? >> no. because e-cigarettes are regulated by the food and drug administration. which is a federal entity. the food and drug administration has said for better or worse, they're okay. so the states and municipalities have no say whatsoever. there is also a commerce clause issue. a city or state can't just stop the flow of commerce because it doesn't like the lawful product that is flowing. that's basic commerce clause jurisprudence which the supreme court reinforced as early as this morning in a case involving liquor and tennessee. neil: last but not least, jerome powell. the president hates the guy. regrets ever hiring him. but it was mentioned with maria again this morning, yeah, i can fire him, yeah, i can demote him. everyone i talk to says he

can't. >> i hate to be the naysayer again. he can't. well, he can. he can't fire him because he doesn't like the interest rates. he can only fire a board member of the federal reserve for cause which is misconduct in office. neil: malfeasance. >> basically committing a crime. neil: why does he keep perpetuating this lie? >> i think because he wants to intimidate jerome powell. i don't think -- neil: you and i know jerome powell. it's not going to happen. >> he roomed across the hall from me when i was a senior and he was a freshman. we called him jay. i wish i had known then he was going to become the chair of the federal reserve. neil: was this at princeton? >> yes, it was. i don't think the president will intimidate him. neil: i was across the hall from a guy who later owned a string of delis. >> might have become wealthier than jerome powell. neil: he can't do it. the judge is saying you can't do it unless it's for real -- >> it's not me. it's the law is crystal clear on this. neil: are you absolutely right.

i want to stress this again for all you people, the president keeps pushing this, it is a lie, it is wrong. he cannot fire the chairman of the federal reserve. he can't demote him, all of a sudden have him cleaning restrooms there. no matter how many times you hear this, understand that he cannot do it. this is the same guy saying tariffs are something governments pay. you don't have to worry about it. they are beautiful. maybe in his opinion, but you do pay those tariffs. they come on you, whether you support the president or not, doesn't matter. that's just the facts. i don't have time to keep repeating this. more after this. -driverless cars... -all ground personnel... ...or trips to mars. $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.

neil: we might know in about a half an hour, that's when we will get the sense of the fate of the border bill and whether there's a vote. michael burgess joins us right now. congressman, how likely is it that we get this resolved before you guys leave for the july break? >> the correct answer is we absolutely have to have it resolved before we leave for any sort of break. as far as the likelihood of that happening, you know as well as i that the senate is voting on their bill, it will be significantly different from the house-passed bill last night, and they will go to conference which they're not used to doing anyway, then somehow the rough edges get knocked off and the bill comes back and passes the house and the senate and the

president signs it into law. but that is not designed to be a quick process. what would be a quick process, the senate passes their bill, it passed out of their committee with a bipartisan 30-1 vote, so you talk about the bill last night was a party line vote in the house, so the senate's got a bipartisan product, they bring it over to the house. if it passes, then it goes to the president for signature, it's a done deal. it's done before 5:00 this afternoon. i guess he's out of the country but it could be done very quickly. neil: your hope is that it will be. i'm wondering if you can clarify certain remarks made with msnbc, speaking with chris hayes earlier on, saying the problem in the case of some of these detention centers, including one in brownsville, was overstated. you said at the time there's not a lock on the door. any child is free to leave at any time. but they don't. you know why? because they are well taken care

of. were you saying, congressman, that the kids should just up and leave on their own? >> they can't just run across the countryside because obviously, they have come into the country and already broken a law just by being here. however, they are in these shelters, let me stress, they are shelters, not detention facilities, customs and border patrol has a different mission, and they do detain people until they find out whether they are a risk to the citizens of this country and i want them to do that. but once a child who is unaccompanied, an unaccompanied minor, needs to be placed with a family in this country, there's a lot of things that have to be checked and that child is then placed under the jurisdiction of health and human services office of refugee resettlement, and that is -- these are the facilities that i have visited on a lot of occasions, a number of occasions, 10 or 12 occasions within the last five years. neil: you argue that most were good, nothing nearly as bad as

being portrayed. i just want to understand, to be clear, you're not saying a 7 or 8-year-old could just walk out of there if they find it offensive that they aren't getting toothbrush or soap or anything. >> as a positive matter, they are taking care of kids that are 13 to 17 years old. neil: as a 13-year-old, are you saying he or she could just walk out? >> no. they can't just walk out. but they can identify themselves saying look, i shouldn't have done this, i want to go home, and their embassy will be contacted and appropriate social service personnel on our side will help facilitate their transfer back to their home country. that is stated in the office of resettlement policy. neil: they don't know any better, right? >> well, they want to be here. the effort, sometimes very extensive effort, to be here so they're not likely to do that. bear in mind oftentimes the

family has incurred a significant financial obligation to send the child here so the coyotes, the cartels to whom the money is owed is not going to look kindly on the fact the child just got on a plane -- neil: well, there are more forces at play but there's another thing going on, we are showing this right now, where is this, boston? one of the things we're watching is these workers at wayfair are very angry that their company is going to be providing beds for some of these detention facilities, whatever we are calling them. what do you think of that? >> that's unfortunate. look, people do confuse customs and border patrol and their mission with office of refugee resettlement and their mission. office of refugee resettlement is a shelter for children. i don't know of any other country, i don't know if you can tell me that there's any other country that is doing what we are doing right now with 50,000 kids since last october, since the start of this fiscal year. it's absolutely unheard of, the herculean effort the men and

women of the office of refugee resettlement are putting into this effort and they are doing a great job. i think the employees, that's unfortunate that they have done that. i wish they understood the situation better. but i can't -- i can't make them understand any better than anyone else. people want to believe that the administration is bad. people want to believe that the administration is doing evil things to people and you can't talk them out of that. nou that. you know that. neil: you're right. one of the things i did want to get a sense from you, this problem with children has i think quadrupled is the figure i heard in just the last eight months. obviously the people on the border are supposed to be working at their regular jobs are dealing with this. i get that. i understand that. but do you know what the policy is there, because at some of these facilities that are dealing with this problem with kids, who decides whether they

have soap or tooth brushes or all this other stuff? who makes that call? are they just confused about who does what? >> well, any child entering an hhs facility, office of refugee resettlement facility, is going to be issued those items upon arrival. now, customs and border patrol, a lot of these places are remote, out on the border, and no one is supposed to, as a child you're not supposed to be held there for longer than 72 hours except that there are no beds. that's what's just tragic about the democrats -- neil: the facilities in question are not the ones that are hhs facilities? they are not prepared for this, correct? >> customs and border protection, their job is to protect us and we want them to do that job. they would rather not be in this position. they would rather get the kids off to o.r.r. quickly but if there are no beds they can't just manufacture one, especially if the company won't sell them any. but the point is the backlog, the bottleneck is occurring because the administration came to congress in may, may 1st, and

said we are going to need money, we are running on fumes. congress has not responded. that's really the tragic part of this story. neil: maybe some progress will be made by the end of the day as you intimated. we will see. thank you very, very much. meanwhile, something affecting the oil crisis which has nothing to do with iran and has everything to do with the largest oil refinery on the east coast shutting down after that explosion. phil flynn on what this means now. phil, what do you think? >> nobody wants a refinery in their backyard and one blows up, all of a sudden gas prices are going through the roof. that's what's happened. a few weeks ago we were talking about low gasoline prices, they seemed like they were going down forever. i warned you, don't get too complacent with this. all of a sudden what happened? we have strong gasoline demand, we have this major refinery outage and this closure of this philadelphia energy solutions plant is going to be very controversial. already, we are hearing back from the united steel workers

saying wait a second here, guys, maybe they had insurance, we don't want this thing to shut down. a lot of the drivers are saying hey, wait a second, don't shut this thing down. and keep in mind that philadelphia energy solutions was helped bailed out of bankruptcy by the federal government. that's right. they owed the federal government a lot of money, they declared bankruptcy, so with the help of the government, they were able to remain open. but after this explosion, they're saying wait a second, the costs are too high, we're going to walk away. but i don't think they are going to walk away without a lot of people saying hey, wait, let's revisit this thing one more time. neil: phil flynn, thank you, my friend. >> thank you. neil: all right. phil in chicago. by the way, we understand right now t the president is speaking with reporters ahead of hopping on marine one to go to osaka, japan. when that tape comes into our hands we will play it for you. more after this.

nah. not gonna happen. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. it's soft... the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to

60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, and the door ensures a watertight seal, so you never have to worry about leaks. kohler's walk-in bath was designed with convenient handrails for added stability and safety. the wide, ergonomic seat is tilted back for comfort and stability. it has a channel so water won't pool on it. and it positions you perfectly by the controls. while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders, warming up your body before, during and after the bath. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. honey, are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with powerful, fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. oh yeah, that's the stuff. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand.

we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call... and ask about saving $1,000 on a walk-in bath or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. would you mind passing my book there? once again, that's... and financing is available for qualified purchasers. is where people first gathered to form the stock exchangeee, which brought people together to invest in all the things that move us forward. every day, invesco combines ideas with technology, data with inspiration, investors with solutions. because the possibilities of life and investing are greater when we come together. ♪

neil: instagram, i have no idea what this means, is alerting my young staff that it's rethinking the whole experience, possibly getting rid of likes. i don't know what that means. fortunately, brad larson does. what does it mean? >> you know when you talk to people from california, and they're like i don't know like what i'm like going to do. no, it's not that. it's the social media thumbs up on instagram. facebook has matured from just the thumbs up. they have the heart, they have the crying face, they have the laughing face. instagram has the like button. that is it. instagram's take on this is it's great but it can also lead to some not feeling good about yourself. you could post a picture and people wait to see are my friends going to like it, are my friends going to respond to this at all. we have seen take the tide pod challenge, where kids are doing

outrage outs thingeous things t likes, more attention. neil: you get a lot of likes -- >> means you are the cool kid in the quad. it's an interesting idea. instagram has been talking about this for several months. this is part of their wellbeing initiative, part of another push, they want to avoid bullying on these sites. anyone who ever read the comment section on a tweet or instagram post, it's sunshine and bubblegum down there for all the people around the world. is getting rid of likes going to make us all feel better about ourselves? probably not. the caveat of all of this -- neil: they're not replacing with anything. >> no, they're just not going to -- if i post a picture of my dog, here's my dog, having a great time, i will see how many people liked it but other people coming across the photo won't get to see that. neil: you will still find out? >> i will still get the analytics. yes. that's where it's kind of, i get the wellness angle in terms of other people knowing. but i also don't get it.

what's also interesting is a lot of people make money off of being on social media. the so-called influencers. you have millions of followers and they get thousands of likes on these photos. how are we going to prove that? are they then going to go to the influencers and say hey, we've -- neil: you are an influencer. >> huge influencer. literally, when i post things, tens of people are out there liking it. i make literally no money off of it. neil: some sites do variations of this. facebook has friends and all that. does that matter to users? i know you took that away. >> instagram, we should also note, instagram is owned by facebook, it's such a behemoth as it is now that i don't really see, there's not another option. yes, you could say oh, people could go to snapchat but those are two completely different platforms. i don't think it's going to make a huge difference. will it help with people's wellbeing? you know, question mark. neil: all these guys are being looked at.

not instagram so much, facebook certainly. you know, you're not unbiased, you rig the system, you spy on us, all of this. you and i were discussing it last week. there's a clarion call, rein all these guys in. what do you think? >> you know, there definitely needs to be some guard rails put up around technology. i think it's great that we have stepped back from all the stuff happening on the internet and let it mature, let it prosper. we have seen some amazing things come out of the internet that was created back in the '60s by the department of defense. but at some point i feel like we do need to step in and say okay, we've got a tax problem, when you're shopping on amazon, some people don't pay any taxes, some people do. we've got an issue of there are claims that they've got their numb on the sca thumb on the scale and decide where things are going. they can step back and say that's the algorithm. the algorithm was designed to show you what it thinks you want to see based on your likes. neil: the president says that it's a rigged system, they hate conservatives, they hate him.

separate issue, i grant you. >> yeah. i don't know that, you know, algorithms are just computer programs. you could argue that -- neil: he says they stack the deck against him. >> i don't know that that is necessarily true. but then, i'm not peeking under the hood to see what's really going on. i wouldn't be able to speak specifically to that. only to say that the algorithms of google and facebook and instagram and all the social media sites including amazon, they are trade secrets. they will be able to sit back and say we can't show this to you because if we show you, then you will know exactly what to do to get your stories to propagate to the top of the list. neil: you are a genius. you really are. thank you very, very much. the president speaking with reporters moments ago. >> thank you very much. i just spoke with nancy pelosi and we had a good conversation

having to do with the bill, humanitarian aid at the border for the children mostly, and we are moving along very well with a bipartisan bill in the senate. i spoke with mitch, spoke to a lot of people. we're doing very well. it's very far along and i believe the house is going to also be getting together with the senate, hopefully they can get something done. it's humanitarian aid. it's very important and i think that a lot of people are starting to realize that i was right when i said we have a crisis at the border. everyone's saying now we had a crisis at the border, wasn't a manufactured crisis which they were saying. it wasn't manufactured at all. we have a crisis at the border. we can solve the problem if they would change some of the rules and regulations, change asylum, change so many different things, the loopholes in particular, could be done very quickly and you wouldn't have this problem. i have been saying it for a year and a half.

i've been saying you have to change the loopholes, you have to change asylum. you wouldn't have this problem. they're not working on that unfortunately today. what they're working on is aid, it's humanitarian aid for the children. it seems that the senate is very close. i think that nancy wants to get something done and the senate and the house will get together, i think they'll be able to do something very good. i'm heading as you know, and some of you are coming with me, i'm heading to japan. osaka. we are going to be meeting with a lot of different countries. many of whom have been taking advantage of the united states but not so much anymore and soon not at all anymore. so we appreciate it. any questions? reporter: -- about robert mueller's testimony. >> look, the mueller thing never stops. there was no collusion, there was no obstruction, there was no nothing. how many times do we have to hear it? it never ends. it just keeps going on and on. i have been going through this for two years, two and a half

years. and the criminal activity was on the other side. with the fake dossier, the phony fraudulent dossier and all of the other things they've done, the fisa courts, all of that. with the insurance policy by strzok and his lover, page. this is a disgraceful thing. now we keep -- i heard about it last night and i just said does it ever end, at what point does it end. it's a disgrace. no obstruction, no collusion. now, the democrats want a do-over so they had a do-over in the house, that didn't work. they had a do-over in the senate, that didn't work. there are no do-overs. we spent a long time working with mueller. i gave him all the witnesses he wanted. i gave him lawyers. i gave him people. i guess he interviewed 500 people, 2500 subpoenas. they had everything they could possibly have. nobody's ever had more. nobody's ever been more

transparent. and now it continues further. this is just a hoax. i call it the witch hunt but it's really a hoax. it's the greatest hoax ever in the history of our country and it's the worst political scandal on the other side. so we'll see because a lot of things right now are coming out that are very very bad, what they did. but this just continues on two and a half years, it continues. yeah. [ inaudible question ] >> i cannot -- you got to -- [ inaudible question ] >> that's like i've been saying. if they fix the laws, you wouldn't have that. people are coming up, they're running through the rio grande. it's a rough -- it can be a very rough river of sorts. there are times when going across the rio grande is very very dangerous, depending on the time of year and the conditions and the rapidity of the water, and we know that and we have many, many guards there but

people go through the guards. if we had the right laws that the democrats are not letting us have, those people, they wouldn't be coming up, they wouldn't be trying. we are building the wall, it's under construction, a lot of it is under construction. we'll have over 400 miles next year by the end of the year. but it's very important. they can change it very easily so people don't come up, and people won't get killed. women are being raped on the journey up. you have these caravans. women are being raped. one of the terrible things, children are actually being brought into slavedom. if you look at what's happening, the cartels and coyotes, they're getting rich because the democrats refuse to change the loopholes. they refuse to change the asylum. in one hour, we could have it done. they want to have open borders and open borders mean crime, and open borders mean people drowning in the rivers and it's

a very dangerous thing. reporter: how do you feel about [ inaudible ]? >> i hate it. and i know it could stop immediately if the democrats change the law. they have to change the laws. then that father who probably was this wonderful guy with his daughter, things like that wouldn't happen because that journey across that river, that journey across that river is a very dangerous journey. that's a very, very dangerous journey. and we don't say -- and by the way, just so you understand, many other things happen. look, you've seen it. women being raped, women being raped in numbers that nobody believes in these caravans coming up. now, i want to thank mexico. they put 6,000 people at the border. [ inaudible question ] >> the asylum policy of the democrats is responsible. because they will not -- they

will not change the asylum policy but now for the first time, they're starting to talk about it. reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> i don't know anything about it. i just heard. my only response to mueller is does it ever stop. after all of these years, the times and people, does it ever stop. and the democrats use it to try and divert from what they have because what they've done, if you look and you see, it's just my opinion, tremendous criminal activity on their side. and they know it and this is a diversion. but i ask you this. does it ever stop. okay. reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> i'll have a very good conversation with him. what i said here is none of your business. go ahead. reporter: -- great deal with china? >> there's a possibility. i'm meeting with russia, i'm meeting with china, i'm meeting with many countries. we're meeting with many countries.

we have many things -- we have been ripped off by everybody over the years. they're not ripping us off anymore. a big difference right now. we're meeting with china, just so you know, china has been paying us billions and billions of dollars. until i got here, they never paid this country ten cents. so we'll see what happens with china, with russia, with japan, with many countries. say it? reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> you know what, iran can do whatever they want. it's just fine. i have plenty of time. but they have a country that's in economic distress. it's an economic disaster right now. they could solve it quickly or they could solve it in ten years from now. whatever they want is fine with me. whatever they want. i have all the time in the world. i'm sitting, i have all the time in the world. in the meantime, they have very strong sanctions. they have to live with those sanctions but iran should do the right thing with their people.

the problem is i don't believe their leader, i'm not sure that their leaders care for their people. if they do, they will make a deal. if they don't, they're just thinking about themselves and they're selfish and they're stupid if that's what they're doing. reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> i'll be meeting with a lot of other people, but i may be speaking to him in a different form. i'll be going as you know to south korea after we're finished with the g20, and we'll be there for about a day. we have a lot of meetings planned with a lot of different countries. we are a country that's respected again. not like the old days. we're respected again. these countries respect us. they didn't respect us three, four, five years ago. they respect us again. thank you very much. neil: all right. you were listening to the president. one quick correction on something he said there about the chinese for the first time paying billions and billions of dollars in tariffs.

technically, you're paying that. governments don't pay that. but the tariffs and the payments are the source of this ongoing trade friction right now. want to get the read on all this with "wall street journal" columnist william gosten, who put pen to paper on this issue. what is behind the president overseeing a pretty strong economy, pretty strong markets, not seeing any polling bang for the buck. it's still early. one of the things i was intrigued with reading your column, welcome, good to have you, you said it's a matter of character and character counts. you ended your column saying we can argue about the extent to which americans want radical rather than incremental policy change, but when it comes to presidential qualities, a strong majority wants a return to normal. by normal, you mean traditional type of, you know, keep the heat down president, did i get that right? >> yeah, normal, normal means the presumption is that the president tells the truth, that

he cares about people like me, that he's reasonably level-headed, that he talks about other people, particularly his political opponents, in terms that are not personally abusive but rather respectful, and in general, that the president preserves a certain sort of demeanor, of dignity. that doesn't mean, that doesn't mean you have to be a sober sides all the time, that you can't have fun, that you can't exhibit humor, but americans over decades, indeed centuries, have gotten certain expectations about the way presidents are supposed to behave in their capacity as president of the united states. neil: when you think about it, it got him elected, right? neil: it got him elected. that is great. people knew all about my mercurial temper tantrum tweeting way.

>> they certainly did. the question how these qualities are wearing over time and my argument, based on a full year of survey research is that these qualities are pulling against the kind of presidential approval that he otherwise enjoyed. to put it simply, he turned into his own worst enemy. neil: interesting. i know pendulums swing. from up with presidency we take a character difference to the next press dep sy. that may be given all the hyperbolic and very dramatic extremes from this administration and the environment we live in. we might want to seek out maybe a little less drama but the trump loyalists tell you, you get a lot less effective results on the economy, all that other stuff. what do you say? >> i think, i think it is hard to say whether the, whether the president's deviation from

normal presidential conduct has been a plus or minus for accomplishing results but one thing i can say for sure, and that is that the american people are exhausted, a majority of americans are just feel pummeled on a not just a daily, almost an hourly basis by controversy, by conflict. neil: but they love what he done for the economy. he polls well on that. >> that is the whole point, if this were a normal presidency, his approval would be a lot closer to his approval on the economy and the puzzle is, i'm trying to explain there is a huge gap between the way people feel about the economy and the way they feel about the president as a whole. that is a problem for him. neil: it was a brilliant column, whether on the right and left, something to think about, could explain the the anomaly for the

time-being the president is not. william galston, no matter your persuasion, makes you think. a guy does that solid hour throughout the day, tons of hours throughout the week, charles payne right now. to you, buddy. charles: neil, thank you very much. good afternoon, everyone, i'm charles payne. this is "making money." breaking right now stocks slightly in the green amid fresh optimism about a possible deal between the united states and china. >> so when you say are we going to make a deal, it's possible we're going to make a deal but i'm also very happy where we are now. charles: meanwhile president trump also unleashing on jay powell, blasting him for not cutting rate. >> let him show how tough he is. he is not doing a good job. charles: i'm going in depth how i think the fed chair is doing and the stage is set for night one of the democratic debates. elizabeth warren perfectly positions to keep her momentum going but could a