'Fox News Sunday' on October 3, 2021

크리스 월레스, 폭스 뉴스 앵커: I’m Chris Wallace.

President Biden tries to end the fight between the moderate and progressive

wings of his party that threatens to derail his domestic agenda.

(비디오 테이프 시작)

대표. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): We need to get this reconciliation bill.

이것의. 조만친 (D-WV): For them to get theirs, elect more liberals.

조 바이든, 미국 대통령: It doesn’t matter whether it’s

in six minutes, six days, or six weeks. We’re going to get it done.

WALLACE (voice-over): The president pledging to bridge the divide between

centrists, who want to vote now on a bipartisan infrastructure bill, 과

progressives who want to wait for agreement on a sweeping plan to reshape

the nation’s social safety net.

This hour, we’ll talk with White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond and

ask Congressman Ro Khanna, a member of the Democratsprogressive wing,

about the president’s call to lower the price tag. 을 더한, get reaction from

the number three Republican in the Senate, 존 바라 소 — only on “여우

News Sunday.

그때, we’ll ask our Sunday panel about Joe Biden’s presidency at a

crossroads.

And our Power Players of the Week: the team working around the clock to

ensure no service member is left behind.

모두, 지금, 의 위에 “FOX News Sunday”.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (카메라에): And hello again from FOX News in Washington.

잘, this was supposed to be the week House Democrats passed that

bipartisan infrastructure plan and give President Biden a much-needed

legislative victory. But this Sunday, the party is still deadlocked between

the moderates who want infrastructure and progressives who are determined

to block that bill until they get the massive social spending they want.

President Biden is now talking about taking weeks about trying to resolve

the differences inside his own party. The real danger? That he ends up with

neither part of his domestic agenda.

In a moment, we’ll speak with Biden senior advisor Cedric Richmond and

California Congressman Ro Khanna, a key member of the progressive wing.

그러나, 먼저, let’s bring in David Spunt at the White House with the latest

on the effort to find a compromise — 데이비드.

DAVID SPUNT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: 안녕하세요, 크리스. As the U.S. Senator Joe

Biden spent almost 40 years on Capitol Hill compromising, finding a

compromise in this Congress will be tough, but he’s not giving up.

(비디오 테이프 시작)

BIDEN: There’s nothing in any of these pieces of legislation that’s

radical, that is unreasonable.

SPUNT (voice-over): Before leaving for a week in Delaware, a confident

President Biden said he’ll take his time, pushing both items on his wish

명부. But telling progressives that they must come off of their $ 3.5

trillion top line for their social spending bill.

대표. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We needwe need to be real. Are

we going to deliver universal pre-K to this country or not? Are we going to

expand health care to our seniors and include vision and dental or not?

SPUNT: While moderates led by Congressman Josh Gottheimer have no time for

the delays, 쓰기: It’s deeply regrettable that Speaker Pelosi breached

her firm public commitment to members of Congress and American people to

hold a vote and to pass a once in a century bipartisan infrastructure bill

on or before September 27th.

In a Saturday letter to her caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote: We will and

must pass both bills soon. We have the responsibility and the opportunity

그렇게 하기 위해.

But centrists like Gottheimer are focused on the infrastructure bill and

they have support from Republicans.

이것의. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): That’s what’s wrong with Washington, D.C. 우리

don’t put the needs of the American people first. We put some other agenda

and nothing ever happens.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SPUNT (카메라에): 협상, 크리스, are ongoing until this comes to

투표. 그 동안에, there’s another clock ticking, raising the nation’s debt

ceiling until it hits its limit in just a few weeks — 크리스.

WALLACE: David Spunt, reporting from the White House — 데이비드, 감사합니다.

And joining us now, senior advisor to the president, Cedric Richmond.

씨. Richmond, welcome back toFOX News Sunday”.

CEDRIC RICHMOND, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: 그래서, the House is out of session for the next two weeks. 그만큼

legislation for this massive spending bill hasn’t been written yet.

Here was President Biden on Friday.

(비디오 클립 시작)

조 바이든, 미국 대통령: I’m telling you we’re going to

get this done.

REPORTER: 언제?

BIDEN: It doesn’t matter when. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in six

의사록, six days, or six weeks. We’re going to get it done.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: When the president says six weeks, 씨. Richmond, aren’t we

talking, realistically, about something in that timeframe?

RICHMOND: 잘, 아니, we don’t have a time frame on it. This is just about

delivering and making sure that we deliver both bills to the American

people because it meets their needs. 그래서, we’re not using an artificial

timeline and we’re not concerned with process. We’re cerned (ph) — 이었다

concerned about delivery.

WALLACE: But you can’t deliver until you complete the process.

The president has, at various points, been frankly all over the map on

whether or not the big infrastructure bill and the big social spending bill

are linked. 먼저, they weren’t. 그때, they were. And as of Friday, 그들

are again.

RICHMOND: 잘, the president wants both bills and he expects to get both

bills. 낸시 펠로시, the speaker, has said that they’re going to pass both

bills and we believe that because we know that both bills are very popular

and both meet the needs of the people right now.

그래서, we’re going to continue to work on both, keep our heads down and

make sure that we deliver.

WALLACE: But would you agree that at this point, both the moderates in the

Democratic Party have a veto over the spending bill in effect and the

progressives in the party have a veto over the infrastructure bill?

RICHMOND: 잘, the future may be intertwined a little bit. We don’t

necessarily agree that it isthat they’re mutually exclusive. 하지만

point is very simple. 그것은 — we need to make sure that we look at all of

the programs that we need to deliver, create a bill, and so that we can get

it passed through the Congress. And I think it’s really just that simple.

WALLACE: 그래서, the president on Friday told the House Democratic Caucus, 과

especially the progressives, they’re going to have to come down on the

price tag for that big social spending bill from $ 3.5 일조. What they

have been talking about, to more in the neighborhood of $ 2 일조 —

still a pretty pricey neighborhood, which is still even more than Senators

Manchin and Sinema are talking about.

My question is this, as the president talks about bringing the price tag

down by at least a trillion and a half dollars, does he want to eliminate

some of the proposed new programs that were included in this measure, or is

he talking or thinking about funding all of them but at a reduced level

과, 솔직히, for a shorter time periodin other words, 와 함께

expiration notewhich as you know as well as I as a former member of

회의, that that’s an old budget gimmick here in Washington?

RICHMOND: I’ll tell you that those decisions will be made in conjunction

with members of Congress. But there is unity of purpose. Everybody wants to

bring down the cost of prescription drugs and health care and expand it so

more people have it. We want to make sure that we do the child tax credit

and that we make sure that we cut taxes for working families. 사람들은

things that the entire Democratic Caucus is united about.

그래서, we don’t look at this as a number. We look at this as what programs

are we going to deliver, how do we ensure that we have child care so that

parents can enter into the workforce and stay in the workforce?

그래서, 우리를 위해, this is about making sure that we meet the needs and the vision

of President Biden.

WALLACE: But this is a pretty big decision, because you can fund fewer new

programs and keep them going for a longer time, or you can fund all of the

programs in the wish list but then you’re setting dates when they go out of

— 알 잖아, that there are no longer in effect. And that runs the risk

that when they run out, 의 말을하자, 에 2025, that the Congress and president

at that time won’t renew them.

RICHMOND: 잘, that would just make an argument, whenever they expire,

the vision of the people of this country and what they want. And we know

clearly that by passing the child tax credit in American Rescue Plan, 우리

reduced child poverty in this country by 50 퍼센트. That’s why the child

tax credit is the number one thing that we’re trying to get accomplished

지금, because we see how it lifted children and families out of poverty and

we want to do it again.

그래서, if that fight comes back in 2025, 2026, or any other year, 이었다

going to be prepared to fight for it and American people will know just how

important it is.

WALLACE: 그래서, Senator Joe Manchin. He is still at 1-1/2 일조, 아니 3-

1/2, 아니 2, $ 1-1/2 trillion for the total social spending bill.

And here’s what he said it in a statement this week: Spending trillions

more on new and expanded government programs when we can’t even pay for the

essential social programs like Social Security and Medicare is the

definition of fiscal insanity.

Is Senator Manchin wrong?

RICHMOND: 보기, I won’t say that Senator Manchin is wrong, but I will say

that this administration, we know what we need to do. We need to deliver

for the American people. Seventeen Nobel laureate economists said that if

we pass both of these plans, we would reduce inflation.

그래서, what we have work to do is make sure that Senator Manchin

understands how this affects the future in terms of making sure that we

invest in American families so that they can determine their own destiny.

We think we have unity of purpose with Senator Manchin. That’s what the

president does best and that is to talk to Senator Manchin and make sure

that he understands the entire vision why we need to do it and what amount.

하지만 하루가 끝나면, 크리스, I think what’s important for people to

understand is that this piece of legislation cost zero. We’re going to pay

for it all by raising taxes on the very wealthy and big corporations, 어느

is favored by 70 퍼센트 —

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: 씨. Richmond, I’ve got toI’ve got have to stop you there. 그것

doesn’t cost zero. Whether it’s $ 3.5 trillion or $ 2 일조, 그것 — 또는 $ 1.5

일조, whatever, it costs that amount of money.

지금, you can pay for it either by borrowing it or you can pay for it by

raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, but it doesn’t cost zero.

RICHMOND: 하루의 끝에서, it will cost zero because we’re going to

pay for it. 지금, if you go back and look at the Trump tax cuts, 어느

weren’t paid for, they cost billions and billions.

But we’re going to pay for everything we spend here. And that is not

including the economic benefits and gains that we will get from it.

WALLACE: 그러나 —

RICHMOND: We know what we’re doing. If you look at the American Rescue

Plan, the economy grew faster than it’s grown in the last 40 연령. 우리

created more jobs than any administration in the history of this country.

The president has a vision. He knows what he’s doing. He’s going to deliver

for the American people. And we’re confident that we will bring the

Democrats along with us.

WALLACE: 하지만 다시, I just want to press down on this, 때문에 — I can

understand the argument, a lot of people say that your math is wrong and

even that it won’t add zero to the debt. You could make the argument if you

pay for it that you add zero to the debt, but that doesn’t mean that it

costs zero. 내말은, the fact that you’re raising people’s taxes is a cost.

RICHMOND: 잘, we’re also reducing taxes in this piece of legislation.

Fifty million Americans are going to get a tax cut in this piece of

법률 제정.

WALLACE: But net-net, net-net, if you for it

(CROSSTALK)

RICHMOND: 이들 50 million working families.

WALLACE: But net-net, if it’s a $ 2 trillion spending plan, net-net, you

비용 $ 2 일조.

RICHMOND: 잘, I’m not necessarily sure about that, 크리스. And that’s why

we will make sure that all of the Democrats are involved in how we shape

그것.

But everyone is worried about a top number. What we should be worried about

is the programs we deliver so people can reenter the workforce and that

children don’t drink poison water at school and in their homes.

And remember, this is really not about politics or process. It’s about

purpose in accomplishing and meeting the needs of the American people

WALLACE: Final question. What is at stake here? If Congress fails to pass

both the infrastructure package and the social spending package, what’s at

stake in terms of the Biden presidency and the fortunes for the Democrats

에 2022 중간 고사?

RICHMOND: 잘, this is exactly why left Congress, because President Biden

is not worried about politics. He’s worried about delivering for the

사람들. And that’s what we’re focused on.

We’re going to keep our head down and we’re going to deliver. We’re going

to lower prescription drug cost. People can’t get their drugs at the end of

the month to save their lives. We’re going to keep focusing on COVID.

그래서, this is not about politics. This is about delivering for people, 과

this president’s desire to make sure that he empowers his families to reach

their destiny.

WALLACE: 씨. Richmond, 감사합니다. Thanks for your time today. Always good

to talk with you, 경.

RICHMOND: 감사합니다.

WALLACE: Let’s turn now to Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, a member of

the Congressional Progressive Caucus that’s demanding an agreement on the

big social spending plan before it will back the infrastructure bill.

Congressman, as we have noted, 바이든 대통령, in his talking to House

Democrats on Friday, said to progressives that this number, $ 3.5 일조,

is going to have to come down. And here’s how the head of your Progressive

간부 회의, how she reacted to that. Take a look.

(비디오 클립 시작)

대표. PRAMILA JAYPAL (D-WA), CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS: 이것의

going to be tough. Like we are going to have to come down in our number and

we’re going to have to do that work. So we’re going to get to work and see

what we can get to.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: So let me ask you the same question I asked Mr. Richmond. How do

you get down to that lower number? Because there are two ways. One is that

you push forward fewer proposals but back them more fully, or you keep all

of the proposals but you give them sunset dates which, as we both know, 이다

an old D.C. budget gimmick.

대표. RO KHANNA (디), 캘리포니아: 크리스, we can front-load the benefits and

have less years, but ultimately the president is as honest broker. 그는

going to bring all of the stakeholders together. And I trust his judgment

to get a compromise. Let me just put one thing in perspective. 도날드 트럼프

left us with $ 7 trillion in debt in his term. His vision was cut taxes to

grow the economy. And we had overseas wars. We have a different vision. 우리

do want to spend money, invest to grow the economy. We believe that

investing in the American people in a modern economy is the way to grow

to growth. And that’s our vision.

WALLACE: Let’s talk about other ways that you could cut the expense here.

One of them, 조 만친 — 사실은, two of them Joe Manchin has talked

약. One is means testing. Instead of giving these benefits to everyone

regardless of income level, say they eitherthey phase out, gets lower

and eventually are cut off for people above a certain income level. There’s

also talk that, which is not included in current ideas, for a work

requirement for people getting thosethat child tax credit. What do you

think about those as ways to target these benefits to people?

KHANNA: 잘, it depends what we’re talking about. If we are talking about

a child tax credit, that’s already phased out, Earned Income Tax Credit

that’s already phased. But there are some things, 크리스, that we have to do

together as Americans. 내말은, should we really have segregated classes in

public school?

When I went to first grade, you had blue collar kids there, you had rich

kids there. So when we’re talking about having every American get the

chance to have preschool, which they already have in countries like France,

I don’t think that ought to be means-tested. And we’re talking about

everyone should get to go to some community college because they’re going

to need skills for the 21st Century.

Senator Manchin says we have 11 million jobs that are unfilled. How are we

going to get people credentialed? I don’t think that should be means-

tested. And in terms of the senator’s proposal, I think we can compromise

on what does require means-testing and what doesn’t.

WALLACE: What do you think of Joe Manchin?

KHANNA: I respect him. I’ve been down to Beckley, 웨스트 버지니아. 그는 ~였다

deeply gracious. He cares deeply about his state. 그, 솔직히, has has

always been transparent. We disagree, but he has been clear about what his

views are and I think we can come to an agreement. But he is a straight

사수.

WALLACE: 괜찮아. Let’s talk about something that he has shot straight

약. He says that this social spending program needs to come down

dramatically. He is saying not $ 2 일조, $ 1.5 일조. And here was

something he said this week, take a look.

(비디오 클립 시작)

이것의. 조만친 (디), WEST VIRGINIA: I don’t fault any of them who believe

that they are much more progressive and much more liberal. God bless them.

And all they need to do is we have to elect more, 나는 추측한다, for them to get

theirs, elect more liberals.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: Does Senator Manchin have a point? Because one of the things he’s

basically saying is, 보기, you don’t have a mandate, Joe Biden didn’t have

a mandate, the Democrats in Congress didn’t have a mandate for this kind of

enormous social spending. If you want to govern like FDR with the New Deal,

if you want to govern like LBJ with the Great Society, then win the kinds

of supermajorities that FDR and LBJ had and that Joe Biden and all of you

don’t have.

KHANNA: 크리스, I don’t think Senator Manchin and I are that far apart.

다시, in context, Trump’s spending, which folks aren’t talking about, 였다

$ 7 일조. 이것은 $ 3.5 1 조 이상 10 연령.

And here’s what I would say to Senator Manchin having been to his state.

You know who created the wealth over the last year, where all the wealth is

going? It’s in my district. 내말은, Silicon Valley has done terrific over

대유행. And I’m saying, why don’t we tax some folks who have made

millions of dollars with the digitization of the economy so we can help so

many parts of this country, rural America, places that have been left

뒤에, 솔직히, places in West Virginia that need investment in

industrialization, in the new jobs, in child care. I think Senator Manchin

그리고 나, if we sat down, could come to an agreement. This is about economic

growth. It’s about opportunity in the 21st Century. And we don’t believe

that just having tax cuts and overseas wars is the way to get there.

WALLACE: Why is there such a split inside the Democratic Party? 그것 — 다만

집 안에서, in your body the House moderates were saying, 보기, give us a

vote this past week on infrastructure and we will support — 우리는 할 것이다

negotiate, but we will support a social spending plan, and you progressives

wouldn’t trust them. Why not?

KHANNA: 크리스, 솔직히, there wasn’t a split. We agreed to do what Joe

Biden wants. You know I chaired Bernie Sanders’s campaign. Medicare for All

isn’t in here. Free college isn’t in here.

WALLACE: 기다림, wait, wait, wait. Congressman, time out here. 사실은

that Nancy Pelosi

KHANNA: 확실한.

WALLACE: — wait a minute, promised the moderates a vote this past week.

First on Monday, then on Thursday. And she said to them, I’m going to give

it to you, and you and the Progressive Caucus refused to give it to them.

Why didn’t you trust them that if you passed their plan they would vote for

your plan?

KHANNA: What I said, what the Progressive Caucus has said is we will do

what the president wants to do. 크리스, I didn’t get one call from the White

House saying that we want the infrastructure bill to pass first. I didn’t

get one call from the Speaker’s Office or from the Majority Leader’s

사무실.

The reality is 95 percent of the party has been with President Biden. 그

wants both bills. Those are his bills. He wrote those bills. And that is

그의 비전.

His vision is we want people to have child care. We want people to have

community college. We want folks to get dental and vision. And I will

follow the president on the compromise

WALLACE: So are you saying

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I’ve got 30 seconds left here, 경. Don’t mean to interrupt.

KHANNA: 예.

WALLACE: But are you saying that the White House wanted these two bills

연결됨? Because there have been reports that some top White House people,

including White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, were saying to

progressives, 이봐, stand your ground, it’s OK to link these two bills.

KHANNA: Ron never said that to me, but they never said that we have to

vote for the infrastructure bill. And what I heard directly from the

president is he wants both bills. I think that has always been his vision.

And I’ll tell you this, at least I can speak for myself, I would not have

contradicted the president’s vision. What I have said

WALLACE: 권리.

KHANNA: — consistently when most progressives have said is we want to do

what the president wants. And I think the House moderates thought Joe Biden

is a moderate, he agrees with us. 사실은, this time, he didn’t. He agreed

that we want both bills.

WALLACE: Congressman Khanna, 감사합니다. Thanks for joining us today and we

will be tracking how the negotiations go over the Biden agenda in the weeks

to come.

KHANNA: Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: Up next, reaction from Republican Senator John Barrasso who says

Democrats big spending plans will boost inflation and push the country

toward socialism.

(MERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: While Democrats are locked in a battle over spending priorities,

Republicans are watching from the sidelines with an eye on next year’s

중간 고사.

Joining us now from Wyoming, the number three Republican in the Senate,

존 바라 소.

평의원, welcome back to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.

이것의. 존 바라소, (R-WY): Great to be with you, 크리스. 감사합니다.

WALLACE: You just heard my conversations with Cedric Richmond and

Congressman Ro Khanna.

Your reaction?

BARRASSO: 잘, what we’re seeing is like watching an episode of the

twilight zone. I thought Joe Biden went to The Hill on Friday to try to get

that bipartisan infrastructure bill passed and instead he surrendered to

the radical wing of his party. And now you have this big government

socialism reckless spending bill being basically used to hold hostage the

think that the American people want are roads and bridges, highways, all of

those things.

When a bipartisan bill passed a 50/50 상원, it had 69 투표. It was a lot

of momentum on its side. In any kind of a normal world, that would’ve been

signed into law by the president. This was two months ago. This was before

아프가니스탄, when the president lost a lot of political muscle. Now we’re

at a point where the president is weak and really Bernie Sanders, the far

left Democrats are driving the bus and Joe Biden is just along for the

ride.

WALLACE: 잘, let’s talk about politics on both sides, 그러나. As you

point out, 19 of your fellow Republican senators voted for the bipartisan

infrastructure plan in the Senate. You didn’t. You called the

reconciliation bill a freight train to socialism. You and all of the

Republicans are refusing the normal course, bipartisan passage of raising

the debt limit.

So I guess the question to you and a lot of Republicans is, are you viewing

these issues on the merits or are you just playing partisan politics?

BARRASSO: 잘, I think the American people want the sort of things that

are in that bipartisan bill, roads, 교량, ports, airports, all of those

things are important. I had some concerns with some of the gimmicks that

were used to fund it. I thought it spent too much. There were some issues

that I didn’t like in terms ofI thought it was going to make energy

more expensive and undermine our grid.

그러나, 보기, you have a 50/50 상원. Sixty-nine votes is a big number of

votes to support something. But on this $ 3.5 trillion infrastructure

proposal that the Democrats are focusing on right now with trillions of

dollars of increased taxes and trillions of dollars of increased debt,

every Republican is united against it. We’re a party at that wants to grow

the economy. The Democrats are a party that wants to grow the government.

And you heard it right there, they’re continuing to try to mislead the

public by saying it is free. It is not free. They said, 오, 인플레이션 —

Cedric said, 오, inflation will go down. Inflationpeople are feeling

the bite of inflation right now when they buy groceries, when they buy gas,

all of those things.

WALLACE: 권리.

BARRASSO: And they think if this stuff passes, this massive spending and

tax bill, that inflation is going to get much worse.

WALLACE: But let’s talk, 평의원, about some of the specific programs in

this big social spending bill. As part of the Trump tax cuts in 2017, you

voted to increase the child tax credit from $ 1,000 ...에 $ 2,000.

지금, as part of this bill, the Democrats would extend that to 2025 at a

higher level. The fact is that your state of Wyoming is one of the states

that benefits most from the increase in the child tax credit. Why oppose

그?

BARRASSO: 잘, what you’re talking about, 그러나, ㅏ $ 3.5 trillion massive

계산서, lots of things

WALLACE: 잘, 하지만 — 그러나, forgiveforgive me, 경.

BARRASSO: 예.

WALLACE: 나는 — 나는 — but I’m asking you about this specific part of the

계산서. 나는 — I understand there are parts that you don’t like. 그러나, ...에 대한

instanceI mean theI guess part of the question is, could you have

worked with them on this child tax credit, which you voted for in 2017?

That’s one of the things that you’re voting against now. 왜– why oppose

that specific program?

BARRASSO: 잘, youit’s part of the bigger bill. You know the issues

for any member of the Senate or Congress, you have to look at the entire

bill and say, are you for the bill or you’re not. And I would point out,

크리스, the Democrats are not coming to talk with Republicans on any of

these things. I mean Bernie Sanders, the other day, 말했다 48 people ought to

be able to overrule two, but there are actually 100 members of the Senate.

이것의 52 against a number of things that the Democrats are proposing here.

And the content of this bill matters almost as much if not more than the

비용. I’ve gotten more letters in the last two weeks on one component of

이, which is the issue of giving a whole new army of IRS agents to rifle

through your checking account, to look at any check that you either deposit

or write for over $ 600. This is an invasion of privacy. Every senator’s is

hearing about this. That’s included as well.

So when you take a look at the entire bill, which is why, 알 잖아, 조

만친이 말했다, it’s time for a strategic pause. 잘, it looks like there

may be a long pause on both the real infrastructure bill and this big

spending blowout bill.

WALLACE: You talk about things you don’t like, like the added IRS agents

and added IRS intrusion. Let’s talk about another part of the bill, 어느

is universal Pre-K.

In a state of Wyoming, less than one quarter of children three to four,

그것은 — who would be covered in the bill, are enrolled in publicly

funded preschool. Less than one quarter. Wouldn’t a lot of Wyoming families

benefit from universal Pre-K?

BARRASSO: There are a number of things that will help the people of

와이오밍. 사무용 겉옷, Joe Biden’s policies have been hurting the people of

와이오밍. And I believe that there should be tested. You just don’t give

things universally to everybody. I think there should be work requirements

뒤얽힌. The Democrats are trying to separate work requirements from just

free government checks and programs.

You heard the congressman from the Progressive Caucus say, everybody ought

to get free community college, everybody ought to get free daycare, Pre-K,

all of those things, and that’s not the way that our country has been

founded and how we work together.

크리스 월레스, 폭스 뉴스 앵커: 권리. 나는 — I’ve gotI’ve got less than

a minute left. Are you and your Republican colleagues thoroughly enjoying

this divide inside the Democratic Party?

BARRASSO: 잘, I’ll tell you, 알 잖아, the thing is, Joe Biden ran as a

centrist and as competent. And what we’re seeing is that he is neither. 과

people across the country are feeling less safe with Joe Biden as

대통령. Their paychecks are less safe because of the inflation. When you

look at hundreds of thousands of people legally coming to the country every

달, they feel less safe.

WALLACE: 권리.

BARRASSO: When the generals testify, as they did, that we are less safe to

테러, Joe Biden has now walked the plank for the socialist Bernie

Sanders budget. He’s man overboard and he cannot swim. He is sinking and

he’s sunk (INAUDIBLE).

WALLACE: Senator Barrasso, thank you very much. I love the metaphors. Thank

you. Thanks for your time. Always good to talk with you, 경.

Up next, we’ll bring in our Sunday group to discuss prospects for both of

these bills and what failure to pass them would mean for the Biden

통솔.

(MERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Coming up, DHS tried to avoid an October surprise surge of

migrants making their way to the U.S. from Central America.

(비디오 클립 시작)

젠 프 사키, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are still applying Title 42. 우리

are still sending people away at the border.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: We’ll ask our Sunday panel about the crisis and the administration

응답, 다음.

(MERCIAL BREAK)

(비디오 클립 시작)

조 바이든, 미국 대통령: There is no reason why both

these bills couldn’t pass independently, except that they’re not supposed

to do it that way. It’s a simple proposition. And so I think it makes

sense. I support both of them. And I think we can get them both done.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: President Biden expressing confidence Congress will ultimately

pass his domestic agenda despite continuing deep divisions within his own

파티.

And it’s time now for our Sunday group.

Steve Hayes, editor ofThe Dispatch,” Fox News contributor Marie Harf, 과

Jonathan Swan, national political reporter forAxios.

잘, 홍옥, I think it’s fair to say, at the end of this very eventful

주, that there’s even more backbiting among Democrats right now. A lot of

the House moderates thought that when Joe Biden was coming to The Hill on

금요일, he was coming to rally support for the infrastructure bill. 그

didn’t do that. He seems now to link them.

And I thought it was interesting to hear Ro Khanna say that he didn’t get a

single word from anybody at the White House this week, support the

인프라 법안, which is a message in itself.

So what is going on in the Biden White House?

JONATHAN SWAN, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, “AXIOS”: 잘, I think Joe

바이든, that you just played the clip, said it pretty succinctly, they don’t

have the votes. It’s very, very simple, they don’t have the votes.

And what people expectedsome people expected, not everyone, but some,

was that the progressives would fold. That Nancy Pelosi, with her hammer,

할 것이다 — would basically push them to have that vote andand they would,

알 잖아, dissolve.

그러나, 사실은, you’ve got to give them a lot of credit, they stuck together

and they were very cohesive. And Jayapal and Ro Khanna’s part of the

Progressive Caucus, they stuck together and said, 아니, we’re not going to

separate these two bills, we are going to demand that they stick together.

And they won the fight. 과 — and right now they’re going to face and

externally painful few weeks because it’s not about, 알 잖아 — 여러분

talks about the topline number, 알 잖아, $ 3.5 일조, $ 1.5 일조. 그러나

within that are a whole bunch of programs that are considered vital by many

of these Democrats andand their constituents. So they have to make

really tough choices, do we get rid of paid family leave, child care, 뭐

do we do with climate change, helping the homeless? They have to make

really tough policy choices underneath that top line number.

WALLACE: 마리, you have close ties across the party. Some people are

saying this is no longer just a fight between House moderates and House

progressives. This is now a fight between the House Democrats and Senate

민주당, between Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and between Nancy Pelosi

and President Biden.

MARIE HARF, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT

SPOKESPERSON:

크리스, it’s interesting, a lot of those fightsor those reported fights

are very inside baseball here in D.C. And they’re important because they

도움 — they help guide what policies eventually will get in. I think what

will be a successfully passed bill, eventually.

그러나, 보기, these deadlines, 나는 생각한다, are fairly artificial. There’s nothing

magical about yesterday or Friday when they were trying to get this bill

끝난. So if Democrats, all those different factions, can come together and

get these bills done whenever that is, and after a painful few weeks, 나는

think it will be incumbent upon them to go out to states and say, here’s

what your citizens are getting out of these bills. Exactly the questions

you asked Senator Barrasso. A lot of the pieces of these bills will help

people in states, including states led by Republicans. And so Democrats

have to, 알 잖아 — eventually they have to get this passed. And I think

they will. I think these will be a compromise. But theythey don’t have

a good answer on the Republican side on things like the child tax credit,

on some of these very popular pieces of this bill.

과, 보기, 공화당 원 — Democrats are going to say, 크리스, none of these

Republicans bat an eye at spending, not just on the Trump tax cuts, but on

defense spending, 예를 들면,

WALLACE: 권리.

HARF: Can’t we spend as much money to take care of our people coming out of

such a crisis year and a half?

WALLACE: 스티브, if there is one phrase I hate in Washington reporting, 이것의

make or break, because any of us who have been around for a while have seen

legislation that appears to be in real trouble or even to be dead, 그리고

it’s suddenly revived.

So what do you think are the realistic chances that, 알 잖아, it may be

reduced but both infrastructure and a big social spending plan in the end

will be passed by the Democrats, even with their razor-thin majorities?

STEVE HAYES, 최고 경영자, CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR, “THE DISPATCHAND FOX NEWS

CONTRIBUTOR: 예. 보기, 크리스, I think you’re exactly right. I mean it’s

still possible. There’s no question that Democrats could eventually come

together to pass these plans. 과 — and you’ve seen this again and again

and again covering Washington.

I think the challenge for Democrats right now is this bitterness amongst

these factions is increasing right now, not decreasing. I mean I think your

your interview withwith Representative Khanna and the question you

put to him about reporting about what the White House has been signaling

privately toto these progressives, I think the White House gambled that

that the infrastructure wouldn’t work eventually. And what they wanted

to do was essentially show people like Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema,

other moderates, that Republicans couldn’t really be worked with, 그들이

were going to have to pass the Biden agenda on a partisan basis. 그

complicates matters. The face that Republicans did go along with it, 그

there was this vote in the Senate with 69 투표, that complicates their

original plan.

And what you’re seeing now are these, 알 잖아, I think principled,

significant difference among these factions. But you now have progressives,

they were nice onon your show, 나는 생각했다, 그러나, 알 잖아, they’re taking

shots at the moderates saying these are sellout to corporate interests,

they want to boost the Republican agenda, they’re not committed to

바이든 대통령. These are hard feelings that will take a while, 나는 생각한다,

to get past if they ever are going togoing to make these things work.

WALLACE: 그래서, 홍옥, 간단히, 에 — in this very charged situation, does

the White House have a battle plan, does it have a strategy to pass both

parts of this agenda? 과, 그렇다면, what is it?

SWAN: If they do, it’s been very well concealed. But there is a debate

inside the White House right now between President Biden’s top aides and

and his economic advisors on whether to cull programs altogether and — 과

reduce the number and deliver a few things really well and try and make

them permanent benefits that the American people feel, or proceed with the

the vast range of programs that they have in the original bill but lower

the spending on them, which means, as you pointed out, sunsetting them.

그 — 있다 — there are downsides to both approaches. One being, 만약

you go for the second approach, you might deliver a whole lot of programs

poorly and create a whole lot of uncertainty in the lives of vulnerable

people around the country with all of these cliffs, 알 잖아, every few

개월 — 알 잖아, when unemployment benefits expire, 알 잖아, in these

위기. So it’s a really, really tough set of choices they now have to make

to bring the number down to around $ 2 일조.

WALLACE: 예, 하위 — who ever thought we’d ever talk about down to $ 2

trillion and who ever thought you’d say to some congressmen, you can have

your entitlement but he can’t have his.

Panel, we have to take a break here.

When we come back, there’s a new flood of migrants headed for our southern

경계, and it’s even bigger than the last one.

(MERCIAL BREAK)

(비디오 클립 시작)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We’re a nation state. We have borders.

The idea that we can just have open borders is something that, 나는 생각한다, 같이

a practical matter, 이다 — is unsustainable.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: Former President Obama laying out the challenge the Biden

administration now faces as huge number of migrants continue to make their

way towards our southern border.

And we’re back now with the panel.

Before we get into this, I just want to say, because we’re getting some

some people sending us messages, we did not cut off Senator Barrasso. 그

was on Skype in his home in Wyoming and his SkypeI don’t want to get in

trouble with Skype eitherit went bad. But we did not cut him off and we

would never do that. 사실로, I was enjoying his talking about walking the

plank and not being able to swim.

괜찮아, 스티브, with that cleared up, there are reports that 60,000 ...에

80,000 more Haitians are on the way coming up from Latin America, ...을 통하여

the jungles of Panama, into Mexico, up to the border, which makes the

그만큼 — what we’ve seen so far from the Haitians in Del Rio pale by

비교.

What does this say about the Biden administration and its failure to get a

handle on the immigration crisis?

HAYES: 예, 보기, it’s ait’s a huge problem and it is, 사실로, ㅏ

위기. The Biden administration came into office taking, 나는 생각한다, a rather

long-term view of the approach to the border and the approach to the — 그만큼

growing migration, which really has been taking place for a decade. We’ve

seen these kinds of inflated numbers for ten years. Now there’s been an

additional spike.

I think the problem is you had Vice President Harris, in her — 그녀 —

working out deals with the northern triangle companies — 와 —

국가, with the countries in Central America. 과, 사실로, asking them

to be a frontline border patrol for the United States. The problem is, 그것

wasn’t necessarily in their interest to do that kind of preemptive

enforcement for us. They believe, 많은 경우에, that it’s in their

national interest not to do that. So she tried to push the problem forward

and I think, 사실상, 있다 — 그것 — it hasn’t worked, as we’re seeing with

this increasing surge.

The conditions that are leading people to come are unlikely toto abate

in the coming months. You’reyou’re having COVID, economic crises,

you’re having governance crises, you’re having personal security crises.

They’re going to keep sending people north.

WALLACE: 홍옥, the administration announced a new enforcement policy

this week that they will focus primarily on migrants who have just come

over the border illegally or migrants in this country who pose a threat to

national security or are a real threat to security in general.

Do theybut notnot focus on migrants who have been in this country

for a while and not committed crimes. Do they think that’s going to do

anything to stop the flood of people coming up from Latin and Central

미국?

SWAN: 아니, it’s just a band-aid. I mean when you talk to senior officials,

they acknowledgeI mean this is a — 그만큼 — the set of crisis that Steve

just outlined, it’s probably unprecedented. When youwhen you overlay a

global pandemic with, 알 잖아, in Haiti, the earthquake and — 그리고

assassination of the leader, the economic crisis in the region. 과 — 과

it’s only getting worse.

I mean my colleague interviewed Panama’s foreign minister. As you laid out,

this is only getting worse. Some of it is endorsement from the Biden

administration’s policies andand traffickers using that to message to

people in the region, come on up, come on up.

WALLACE: 권리.

SWAN: So the only way to solve this is a regional solution. That there’s

obviously got to be enforcement from the U.S. side, but they’re going to

have to get cooperation from others in the region, otherwise you’re not

going tobecause the scale of the problem has become so massive that it

is going to require a regional solution.

WALLACE: Here was a Texas county commissioner describing the situation on

the border this week. Take a look.

(비디오 클립 시작)

BEAU NETTLETON, VAL VERDE, 텍사스, COUNTY MISSIONER: This is a huge

national security problem. I mean we have people crossing this border and

we’ve heard number of this group, 까지 20,000, and we’ve had thousands

before this.

(비디오 클립 종료)

WALLACE: 마리, this is the kind of uncontrolled, illegal immigration that

can really cost a party politically. And youand you even had former

President Obama this week talking about anything that smacks of open border

as being unsustainable.

HARF: 예, 크리스, the two constituencies I think Democrats are and should

be concerned about. 먼저, in these border states, 텍사스, 뉴 멕시코,

애리조나, Democrats have made some gains over the last years and we’re

hoping to make more. But I think they’rethey’re nervous about the

politics in these states as these crises at the border get worse.

But they’re also worried about the progressive flank. Joe Biden may have

sided with them on infrastructure and reconciliation, but the progressive

flank isof the party is increasingly noisy about the fact that Joe

Biden’s keeping some of the Trump policies in place, or trying to, 와

표제 42, 예를 들면. 과, 보기, the progressive say, 조 바이든, you ran

의 위에 — on restoring dignity and humanity to the White House, so why is the

border looking quite like this?

Democrats are worried about the politics of both and trying to walk a line

그건, 솔직히, very tricky to do. There are no easy answers and no

good answers right now.

WALLACE: 스티브, how potent an issue is this for Republicans, or how potent

an issue do they think it is for them if we continue to have this — 이

crisis at the border in the run-up to the 2022 중간 고사?

HAYES: 예, pretty darn potent I think for a couple different reasons. 하나

is the reason that Marie suggests. And it’s chaos down on the border. 나는

think that is likely to have follow-on effects for people running in

competitive races, swing districts down there.

Secondarily, if you look nationally, I think it’s a further indictment of

what President Biden said that he was running on, which was returning the

country to normal after the chaos of the Trump years and competence. 그

hasn’t shown that. I mean this — 이 — I think if you look at what’s

been happening on the border since he was sworn in, we knew this was going

to happen. None of this was a surprise. All of the conditions were there.

We understood. And the Biden team was asked before he was sworn into office

what they were going to do to handle this understood crisis that was

성장. And we haven’t seen competent governance. They took this long-term

view. They thought they had years to solve a problem when, 사실로, it was

a growing crisis. I think that is something that’s likely to last

throughout the next year, throughout the next 13 months as a reflection on

his own words on competence.

WALLACE: 감사합니다, panel. We’re going to have to leave it there, but to be

계속되는. See you next Sunday.

Up next, ourPower Players of the Week,” the skilled investigators behind

the military’s effort to return lost heroes to American soil.

(MERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: It’s a pillar of the U.S. military creed, leave no one behind. 과

it turns out the Pentagon is determined to keep that commitment in life as

well as in death. It’s the job of ourPower Players of the Week.

(비디오 테이프 시작)

MAJ. 젠. KELLY MCKEAGUE (RET.), DIRECTOR, DEFENSE POW/MIA ACCOUNTING

AGENCY: 나를 위해, this is the most purposeful mission in the entire

Department of Defense.

Ladies and gentleman, good afternoon.

WALLACE: Retired Major General Kelly McKeague heads the Defense POW/MIA

Accounting Agency, for DPAA, charged with finding and identifying missing

서비스 회원. DPAA teams search around the world for remains from

conflicts dating back to World War II.

MCKEAGUE: They are currently close to 82,000 that are still missing, 의

which we believe 38,000 are recoverable.

WALLACE (카메라에): How do you determine whether or not remains are

recoverable or not?

MCKEAGUE: So our historians will comb through battlefield records, archival

정보. And if they’re able to narrow down an area, we can send an

archaeologists or anthropologist with which to conduct a field recovery.

WALLACE (voice over): There are case files on every one of the missing. 과

the work combines international diplomacy with CSI technology.

MCKEAGUE: We will look at anthropology. We will look for DNA associations,

material evidence, clavicle matching, as well as stable isotope analysis.

WALLACE: 약간 15 percent of our nation’s unknown are buried in places like

the National Cemetery of the Pacific, in Hawaii’s Punch Bowl Crater. 그건

where the DPAA made a major discovery this year, the remains of Medal of

Honor Winner Army Chaplain Emil Kapaun.

MCKEAGUE: A few months after arriving in Korea, his unit is overwhelmed by

Chinese forces. And as the unit leaders ordered a retreat, 그는 말했다, I need

to stay.

WALLACE: The chaplain went from foxhole to foxhole comforting the wounded

until he was captured.

MCKEAGUE: Chaplain Kapaun ministered to all the POWs in the camp. He stole

food and medicine under the noses of the guards to provide comfort and

relief to his fellow prisoners. And for that he was mistreated badly.

WALLACE: Kapaun’s defiance of his captors didn’t end there. He held Easter

mass for his fellow POWs.

MCKEAGUE: And then because of starvation, malnutrition, 만큼 잘

maltreatment, he ended up passing away in May of 1951. His colleagues that

were in the camp revere him.

WALLACE: Seven decades later, his remains were finally returned to his

가족. And this week, thousands watched as a horse drawn caisson carried

the chaplain to his final resting place, back home in Kansas.

WALLACE (카메라에): What did it mean to you having devoted so many years

to this endeavor to identify Chaplain Kapaun?

MCKEAGUE: Here we are, 말 그대로, 잘, 70 years after he died in that POW

캠프, able to bring this final answer or a man that made the supreme

sacrifice to our nation is an absolutely indescribable feeling.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Chaplain Kapaun was named a servant of God by Pope John Paul II.

That’s the first step on the path to sainthood.

And that’s it for today. Have a great week and we’ll see you next FOX NEWS

SUNDAY.

Copy: 콘텐츠 및 프로그래밍 저작권 2021 폭스 뉴스 네트워크, LLC. ALL

RIGHTS RESERVED. 저작권 2021 VIQ 미디어 전사, Inc. 모두

materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not

be reproduced, 분산, 전송, 표시, published or broadcast

without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. 당신

may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from

copies of the content.

범주:

i898

태그:

, , , ,

댓글이 닫혀 있습니다..