rewrites of the law are legal. >> we've never seen a president who takes the view if he disagrees with the federal law, he can ignore it or refuse to enforce it, or he can just unilaterally change it. >> can president obama change obamacare without going back to congress? we'll ask republican mike lee of the senate judiciary committee. and congressman javisarajevo xa bacerra. and we also have someone who stays he'll astound our panel lists. all that's right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. when new jersey's chris christie spoke in chicago this week, democrats sent a former governor to act as a truth squad. when paper from one of hillary clinton i closest friends were uncovered creating a fuss on obama's private comments, we decided it was not too soon to talk about the 2016 presidential election. joining us from ohio, that former governor, democrat ted strickland. and from texas, former bush white house senior adviser, karl rove. all right, gentlemen, we're going to get to chris christie in a moment, but let's start with those papers from close clinton friend diane blair. in the papers, hillary clinton calls monica lewinsky a narcissistic loony toon and adds it was con centusensuaconsensua power relationship and not sex within any real term. and hc still in despair that nobody in white house is tough enough and mean enough. and then going after former president bill clinton as a sexual predator. >> their standard bearer seems to be a guy committing the workplace kind of violence that we should all be opposed to. >> karl, i understand that republicans are going to need an affirmative agenda, but does all that history have any traction in 2016? >> well, it may, but the trouble for republicans is going to be it's easier to say what you're against and harder to say what you're for. go back to 2000, for example, it would have been easy for then candidate governor george w. bush to have repeated some of the charges made by newt gingrich and others against the conduct of bill clinton in the white house, but instead of being against something, he said i will restore dignity and honor to the white house describing what he was for. and anybody who is going to take on hillary clinton in 2016, if she is the democratic candidate or she does run, democrat or republican had better focus on describing what they are for in a way that allows them to contrast implicitly with mrs. clinton, who democrat or republican, easier to say what you're against, harder to say what you're for, and more important to say what you're for. >> governor strickland, if elections, and almost a cliche by now, if elections are about the future, doesn't hillary clinton and to a certain degree bill clinton, don't they have a lot of history to live down? >> chris, they do, but some people think the republican party is a party of old ideas, and i agree on karl with this issue. to go back and to regurgitate something that happened 15, 20 or more years ago, i don't think says a lot about the future. and i believe the 2016 presidential election, regardless of who the candidates are, should be about the future and not a rehashing of the past. >> well, let's talk about clinton's record as secretary of state, which i'm sure you both would agree will be fair game. it will be the last public role she's held before she runs, if she runs. no signature diplomatic breakthroughs, and then there's also benghazi where even on the day that the four americans, dead americans from benghazi were returned to andrew's air force base, clinton seemed to con talk about the video to the islamic consulate. take a look. >> we have seen the heavy assault on our post in benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. we've seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over and awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. >> karl, how big a deal will benghazi be for hillary clinton over the next two-plus years. >> i think it will be a big deal for two reasons, first of all, there are a lot of unanswered questions. why did she and the top official ignore the demand and request for security in our facilities in libya? why did the united states and the state department specifically ignore the actions of other governments like the united kingdom in removing their diplomats from benghazi? who is responsible for sending out susan rice to tell the american people this was all about an internet video? there are a lot of unanswered questions. and the second reason will continue to be an issue because the questions are in many instances being raised by the families of the americans who were killed in libya. and they are not going to go away until those questions are answered. >> governor strickland, doesn't benghazi and the failure as karl suggested to beef up security at the consulate, doesn't that undercut hillary clinton's claim, and we all remember it from the 2008 campaign when she had that phone call ad, the unanswered phone call, the idea that she has the ability to respond to a crisis in the middle of the night and, in that case obama doesn't, but in this case it would be whoever the republican doesn't. doesn't that undercut her claim? >> chris, this issue should not be politicized as it has been. now, if we want to know the truth, i think the better place to look -- >> wait a minute. governor, if i may, i'm just going to ask you, you shouldn't say it should be politicized, we are talking about hillary clinton's record as secretary of state, if the senate intelligence committee said the attack was preventable, isn't that something that happened on her watch? >> if i can respond, chris -- >> yes, sir. >> the best place to go for answers and the truth, i believe, is to the senate intelligence committee, a bipartisan committee issued a report, and we should listen to what was in that report. and that report indicated no cover-up. the report indicated no direct responsibility from secretary clinton. and then, i think, is the fairest answer to the questions being raised. let's go to the bipartisan senate intelligence committee report and reach our conclusions from that report. >> all right. gentlemen, let's move on to chris christie and quite frankly governor, to your comments this week when you shadowed chris christie who chicago when speaking at the chicago economic club about christie's role in the closing of those bridge lanes to the george washington bridge. here's what you had to say. >> either the governor knew and he is lying, or he's the most inept, incompetent chief executive imaginable. >> governor, two questions, first of all, why are you shadowing chris christie two-plus years before a campaign? and isn't it possible as he claims that he just didn't know? >> well, chris, bridgette kelly was his deputy chief of staff, and he fired her because he says she lied to him, but he didn't ask her why she sent that e-mail or who urged her or told her to send that e-mail. that's just unbelievable. i cannot believe that a governor, and i've been one and i've had a close staff and we have worked together on a daily basis, why didn't he ask her why she september that e-mail, and try to find out why and who told her to do that? she obviously didn't do that on her own. and that is just one of the manyimany issues that need to be addressed in this controversy. and if the governor didn't do that, then why didn't he do that? >> why are you shadowing chris christie two-plus years before he's even a candidate? >> well, because he's been put out there by the republican party as the leading candidate for the presidency in terms of the republican nominee. and so he is a national figure. he's described himself as the national figure, and he's the head of the rga, and quite frankly, what he does is a broader concern than simply being the governor of new jersey. he has been and hopes to be, i guess, the frontrunner for the republican party in 2016. so that's why he's getting the attention he's getting. >> karl, let me bring you in and pick up on governor strickland's point, the governor christie's deputy chief of staff, richard m. kelly, knew his appointment to the port authority, david wildstein knew, doesn't it strain how you respond to governor strickland's statement, that christie is lying or he's incompetent? >> well, first of all, i think governor strickland is correct, the reason the democrats are doing this is because chris christie is a strong potential candidate in 2016. and they are going to try to smother every republican presidential candidate they can because they know that this race in 2016 is going to be difficult for the democrats, hard to get a third term, particularly after the two terms of obama. i think the democrats, however, would be better off picking another pro-voice to go after governor christie. when governor christie found out about the two individuals and what they had done, he immediately fired them. let's go back to 2008 and joe the plumber. governor strickland's own appointee as head of the employment commission was found to be accessing confidential government databases in order to find out confidential information, private information about joe the plumber and leaking it to the press. now, is governor strickland to adopt his standard, either incompetent or lying simply because it was his appointee who did these things? let's step back and look at this and let the process go forward and be careful to throw stones like governor strickland is throwing at governor christie. i understand why they want to get him out. >> wait, we are running out of time, i have to let governor strickland respond. >> well, two things. first of all, the person who did that left my administration. and secondly, no information was ever leaked to the press. that is just not a true statement. so things happen, you hold people responsible, and the governor christie has held richard kelly responsible. but, we still do not know who told bridgette kelly to do what she did. obviously, there were -- >> who told your employment commissioner to do what she did? and she did leak confidential information. damaging information about joe the plumber was leaked to the press. >> it did not come from her. it did not. >> who did it come from, governor? >> who did it come from? from confidential government databases, governor. >> karl, there was no information about joe the plumber that was leaked to the press. >> i can go back and look at the director, if i were you. look at the public record. >> gentlemen, we'll cut you off here. karl, we'll continue this conversation if you would like. i'll give you my phone number. >> we'll continue this conversation offline. we'll settle the issue of joe the plumber in addition to hillary. it's sort of one of the golden hits, a golden oldie. thank you both for joining us today. will it be hillary versus christie in 2016? whatever happened to joe the plumber. plus, what would you like to ask the panel? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and we'll ask your question on the air. ♪ [ alarm sound for malfunctioning printer ] [ le announcer ] you've reached the age where you've learned a thing or two. [ metal cnks ] ♪ this is the age of knowing what you're made of. so why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? [ gears whirri ] talko your doctor abt viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your hea is healthy enough for sex. dnot take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effectinclude headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medil help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. [ cellphone beeps ] this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. this is the age of taking action. so ally bank has a that wothat's correct.a rate. cause i'm really nervous about getting trapped. why's that? uh, mark? go get help! i have my reasons. look, you don't have to feel trapped with our raise your rate cd. if our rate on this cd goes up, yours can too. oh that sounds nice. don't feel trapped with the ally raise your rate cd. ally bank. you want income equality? that's immediate mediocrity. or do you want the opportunity for great snps. >> new jersey governor chris christie showing what a formidable presidential candidate he could be if he gets passed new jersey political scandals. it is time now for the sunday group, syndicated sol ummist george will, usa today kimberly powers, kimberly strassel from the washington post, and we have charles lane. as chairman of the republican governors association traveling around the country, one of the problems is a lot of potential candidates in 2014 don't want to be seen as this point. george, how serious is the damage to his potential candidacy? >> damaging in the sense that they have killed a lot of momentum because he had all the news to himself. the virginia governor's race, the new jersey governor's race, it was all focused on him. try a thought experiment, erase bridge gate, and where would he be now? the good luck is also bad luck in the sense that he's in danger of being a little bit too familiar by the time the next wave of candidates come in. if you believe as i do that the next presidential election will be decided on a crescent from pennsylvania to wisconsin, pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, michigan, particularly, you have to get three more presidential candidates out of the states. the governors of kasich in ohio, snyder in michigan, and walker in wisconsin. >> and maybe penson, indiana. >> there's a danger he's out there too early and the novelty will be gone and people say that's an old face. >> it's more than just a bridge lane closures. in "the washington post" christie when u.s. attorney made a deal with bristol squib, bristol myers squib, and instead of charging them with securities fraud, they would do the out-of-court settlement and give $5,000 as a professorship to seton hall law school, which just happens to be his alma mater. what about this whole issue, kirsten, of the whole transactional nature of the way christie does business? >> well, it's obviously a problem. he says that was a deal made by -- wasn't made by him, it was made by the prosecutors and he had nothing to do with it, but it looks pretty bad it's his alma mater. one of the things about christie is he's been seen to a lot of people as the most electable of the republicans, even though he's not beloved by the republican base. and so i think that all of these various heads make him less electable and he loses one of his main arguments. also, there's this now sort of storyline on him because of bridgegate that he's a bit of a bully. so now a lot of things that used to look really good to a lot of people, like standing up to the teachers unions, might start to look like, oh, there he goes being a bully again. >> let's switch, if we can, to the hillary clinton story. there were no bombshells in these papers that actually have been out there for four years, but one enterprising reporter looked of them from diane blair, one of her closest friends in arkansas, they had a lot of private conversations and diane blair, whether hillary clinton knew about it or not, decided to keep a record of them. as i say, those bombshells came, but it does dredge up the history of monica lewinsky, how tough, too tough, hillary clinton could be as first lady. if we suffered from clinton fatigue back in 2008, how is all of that going to wear in 2016? >> well, it's like you said, it drags up this aura to follow the clintons no matter where they go. so probably, if she runs in 2016, you're not going to have a bunch of young people focused on hillary clinton's cattle features deal way back then. most of the people don't know what that is, but it does ask people ask the questions and you're starting to see them being directed to things like the clinton foundation and people who have donated money to them. for instance, there was a story about a particular guy who has given a lot of money to it and also happened to arrange a lot of visits to the state department at the same time. so that's what it does, it just redredges up the question about hillary clinton. and she's going to have to live with that throughout a 2016 run if she does it. >> and then there is benghazi continuing holes in the story as karl rove mentioned. the bipartisan report by the senate intelligence committee that found that the attack was preventable. we asked you for questions, and we got this one on twitter from karen isenberg. how does hillary overcome benghazi after her unanswered phone commercial in 2008? which she used to show that she could respond to a crisis but barack obama couldn't. how do you answer karen? >> i think it's a great question because you could almost see the 30-second commercial the republicans would make. they would take her commercial from 2008 and put it together with maybe her testimony at benghazi when she said, oh, what is the big deal here? all this illustrates is a funny thing that hillary and christie have in common. you know, robert penn wrote "in all the king's men" there is always something, every politician has something in their closet. these two had a lot of somethings because -- there's something spilling out of there. >> they have been around a long time. they have long records, and in chris christie's case, a long record in a state notorious for being kind of a political swamp. so what we're seeing here is on both sides it's -- they are being set up already three years ahead of 2016, even before either has been declared as the opposition sort of rummaging through the closet and there's plenty there. >> we have a minute left, george, and i want to ask you, for all this talk about bridgegate and the blare papers and all of that, how does all this compare to the obama record, in the sense that if people feel good about barack obama in 2016, that they are going to feel good about democrats and feel good potentially about a third democratic term as we saw with bush following reagan and conversely if they feel really bad about barack obama, as negatively as they do now, it almost doesn't matter. it will be really a tremendous burden on the democrats and good for republicans. >> it is probable that 2016 will be the fourth consecutive election cycle in which obamacare is a major issue. that will focus attention on the fact that the first time hillary clinton stepped onto the center stage of american politics was 1993 when it was talked of a co-presidency for the price of one, and he turned health care over to his wife. who in the process both doll gargantuan and opaque that neither the house or the senate both controlled by democrats would even bring it to a vote. so if health care, as i expect it will be, will be a continuing issue in 2016, she has explaining to do. >> she moans about going to congress to deal with these members of congress on hillary care. and the phrase is suck up to them because she has to convince them they are part of the progress when she doesn't think they are. panel, we'll take a break and see you later in the program. up next, another week and another obamacare debate from the white house. two lawmakers debate whether the rewrites of the health care law are legal. and be sure to tell us what you think on facebook and share your favorite moments from today's show with other fns fans. this was an example of administratively making sure we are smoothing this transition, giving people the opportunities to get right with the law. >> president obama this week defending the 24th time he has unilaterally changed his health care law without going to congress. and many are now questioning whether the president is taking his executive authority too far. joining us from utah, republican mike lee, a member of the senate judiciary committee. and here in washington, california congressman xavier baccera. mike lee, i'll start with you. the administration contends it has brought authority under the tax code to implement laws in ways that will encourage compliance. given that authority, doesn't president obama have, whether you like it or not, the ability to keep changing obamacare? >> look, if that kind of broad regulatory mandate buried somewhere within the internal revenue code with authorize the president to do what he's per porting to do here, there's no limit to his authority. and we have a government of one, we have a super executive and super legislator vested in the president of the united states. as of course not what we have as any high school civics student can tell you. the president knows this is wrong, and it's not defensible. he's violating the constitution and exercising power that doesn't belong to him. it belongs to the american people. >> congressman baccera, i went back and read not the whole 2,000 pages, but i read the key parts of the health care law. and it seems to be very specific when it comes to the employer mandate. let's put it up on the screen. effective date, the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after december 31, 2013. but congressman, as you well know, unilaterally without coming back to congress, the president has delayed the mandate from 2013 to '14 to' 15 and now to' 16. what gives him the authority to this clear law? >> it's the same authority that every president has had to make sure the laws are executed in a way to help all americans. the president is simply providing small businesses with the flexibility they need to be able to start adopting the law, small businesses support the flexibility and the president is making sure we implement this in a way that puts into effect the purpose of the law, which is to give people more health security. so if this were against the constitution, someone would have sued by now and the president would have had to stop. the reality is the president has used his executive powers less often than almost every president before him. >> this gets to a bigger issue, and that is the president's declaration that he's going to use executive action when congress won't go along with him and set up an interesting debate. take a look. >> i've got a pen and i've got a phone. and i can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative action that is move the ball forward. >> the president says he has a pen and a cell phone, but the american people have a constitution. and the constitution doesn't give him the authority to unilaterally change the law. he's got to come to the congress to do that. >> in fact, article 1, section 1, of the constitution gives congress all legislative powers. forget the politics for a moment, congressman becerra, i would think as a congressman you would be upset at the idea of any president, and you're right, there are other presidents of the other party who have done it, any president going around congress to this extent. >> if you were going around congress to rewrite law, that would be different than trying to use the flexibility you're given by the congress to execute the law. the president is not trying to rewrite and never said i'm going it alone, the president said i'm going to work with congress, but where congress decides not to act, remember, this is perhaps the greatest do-nothing congress we have seen. we have a republican speaker who said he will not -- he will be the brick wall that will not permit the president to act. so the president is trying to implement the law. >> when the health care law says the employer mandate shall begin after december 31st, 2013, isn't that pretty specific? >> it will begin after december 2013. the president said, we'll start it off 2013, but we'll make sure it works well for small businesses. and the fact that what he's trying to do is make things work, when congress bills, when congress shuts down the government, the president can't just sit there. what he's saying is i -- >> that's the way the constitution is written, the president is just supposed to sit there. >> is just supposed to sit there if we have an emergency? the president is just supposed to sit there? if we have national emergency -- >> we don't have national security here with obamacare. i'm not talking national threat, sir. >> i would hope we never have n executive to twiddle their thumbs with a national emergency. >> when you look at the two-term presidents, obama has used executive orders much less often than his predecessors going back to reagan. and this is the question that congressman becerra raised and is a legitimate question for you, sir, as a member of congress you feel the president is doing something unconstitutional, you said violating the constitution, why don't you take him to court? >> okay, first of all, taking him to court, there are many instances when a president may violate the constitution, but in which for a variety of practical reasons and constitutional reasons the courts may not exercise jurisdiction over that case. it is very difficult, for example, for someone to challenge in court the president's suspension of the employer mandate. it's difficult to identify the kind of plaintiff that would suffer the injury that's particularized to the point so as to establish article 3 standing in court. >> can i ask you a broader question -- >> i want to ask you about that, that's the answer you get, it is hard to accomplish standing. and i'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me, couldn't you say as a member of the senate, hey, we passed this law, the law will go into effect on december 31st, 2013, and the president has ignored our law. so as a member of the senate, i have standing to protest that? >> yeah, there are some who have suggested that, there are others who have suggested that under the relevant supreme court president it may be difficult for members of congress to establish standing in those circumstances. but on the broader question, chris, of the fact that would have presidents in both parties using executive orders, and that this president hasn't necessarily issued more executive orders than other presidents, i have two responses to that. first, chris, not all executive orders are equal. you have some executive order that is are plainly authorized by law, in which congress delegated to the president to make these decisions. that's really not what we are talking about here. what we are talking about here are decisions like those involving the suspension of the employer mandate, but it's not only authorized by the statue, but flatly inconsistent with what the statute says. secondly, to the extent that presidents in both political parties have strayed from the law and have acted unilaterally outside their delegated authority from congress and from the sonty tugs, that's wrong. and the fact that other presidents may have done it in the past doesn't justify it now. >> okay, let me -- >> we can't stand back and simply ignore this. we can't ignore the fact that we have a president acting as if he has the government of one simply because he can't always get exactly what he wants out of congress. >> let's talk about the merits of this latest delay, not the legality, but the merits of it. this is a delay of the employer mandate for companies that are small to medium-sized between 50 to 99 employees. congressman becerra, isn't this really all about politics? that the white house is worried that the companies were either going to fire people or reduce their hours to below 30 hours to be considered part-timers so they wouldn't be laid off just before the november election? or that the companies would throw these people onto the, you know, take away their coverage and throw them onto the exchanges to pay the fund. isn't this about protecting the president splittic in this? >> chris, it's about flexibility for the businesses. what we are seeing for the first time in our -- let me try to finish my response. this is the first time in history -- if you'll recall, this is the first time in our history we are actually going to give americans a chance to have health security where they can have the peace of mind that they will not go bankrupt simply because they used their hospital or doctor. >> sir, forgive me, i'm asking you, the small companies have had the knowledge of what the employer mandate was going to be since the law was passed in 2010. they have had four years, why do they need flexibility now? >> because you're seeing quite a few changes taking place that require the insurance carriers and the employers to take on certain responsibilities, and you want to make sure the responsibilities are taking on in a way that work for not just the business person but also the employees. and what we have seen is over 12 million americans today have the health security they didn't have before. that is important. make it work right. then you tweak it here or there, that's within the president's discretion. and it provides the flexibility that the small business owner would like to have. >> senator lee, congressman becerra persuades you? >> not at all. this is a shameless act, a shameless power-grab designed to help the president and his political party achieve a particular outcome in a partisan election. and that's wrong. look, the constitution doesn't give the president duck power. this power belongs to the people. the people delegate that power to their senators and to their congressmen. they don't give it to the president to act unilaterally and there's good reason for that. the whole reason we have the constitution is to help prevent, to protect us against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of a few or here in the hands of one person. >> and sir, we have 30 seconds, senator, i'm sorry to interrupt. 30 seconds left. on the merits, what about the argument, well, the companies need flexibility? >> okay, so on the merits, if the company's need flexibilities, then the solution is not to ignore the law to pretend that the law allows this sort of thing to happen. the solution is for the president to come to congress and make the case to congress on the policy merits of this question that congress needs to act. and then it's up to congress to act at that point. it is not the president's prerogative to simply make this the law by the stroke of the executive pen. >> senator lee, congressman becerra, thank you for coming in today. we'll stay on top of all this story and i suspect we'll have you both to continue the debate. thank you, both. president obama left snowy washington friday for drought-ridden california where he linked the weather on both coasts to climate change. the panel returns after the break to take on that issue. good job! still runnng in the morning? yeah. getting your vegebles every day? when i can. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. two full servings of vegetables for only 50 delicious calories. we have to be clear, a change in climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, floods are potentially going to be costlier and are going to be harsher. >> president obama and drought-ridden california friday proposing a $1 billion fund to research and help communities dealing with the effects of climate change. and we are back now with the panel. well, the president's case may seem a bit hard to make when the eastern half of the country is in the grips of a brutal winter, but as you heard the president say, climate change accounts for everything from drought to floods. george, do you buy it? >> no, and neither does science. but i'm one of those who are deniers. and i deny climate change. it would be impossible to state with greater opposition the opposite of my view, which is of course the climate is changing, it's always changing. that's what gave us the medieval warm period and sub can she not to that the ice age. when the politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science, says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things, but the debate is raging and he's losing it. so i think frankly as a policy question, chris, the colleague at the wall street journal put it perfectly, the only question is, how much money are we going to spend? how much wealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zero decertainable effect on the economy? >> climate change, fair to say, used to be a hot topic, no pun intended, in fact, it used to be called global warming and now not so much. kirsten, what happened? >> it has become very much an article of faith on the left that this is perhaps the biggest threat that the world faces right now. and i think that what obama is doing is sort of overtly a political move here because there's no way on earth he's going to get a billion dollars out of this congress to do anything. let alone fight climate change. i would say the fund is focused on reducing a carbon emission, which whether you believe in climate change or not, i think, is something people should be able to get behind. less pollution is definitely a good thing. so that may be a better way to make the argument rather than claiming that climate change is the cause of every single thing that happens with the weather. >> as kirsten pointed out, this proposal for this climate resilience fund, $1 billion, is going to be part of the president's new budget, which he proposes in march and i think most people would agree has almost no chance of passage. kim, i want to ask you about your paper, the wall street journal. they did a poll of 15 pressing issues. what do we need to address? climate change came in dead last of all of those issues. and some californians say the lack of water in the central valley near fresno where the president was is obviously -- they have had a drought, but it's because of state and federal regulations that have kept them from sharing water from the sacramento valley because of an endangered species of fish. >> yes. and this is a government exacerbated drought, as it were, because there's water there, there's plenty of water there, and certainly enough water to be providing aid to the farmers who desperately need it at the moment. but as you said, they have been keeping it so that they can flush it down to help endangered smelt. so what we have had is republicans have been desperately trying to address this in the congress with legislation. democrats, even california democrats have blocked that move. and the white house has been against it. so what you've had is the democratic politicians putting the fish ahead of the farmer. so it's doubly sort of interesting to see the president and them go out there and talk about creating -- throwing a billion dollars at a problem that could be sorted out much more efficiently in changes in regulations. >> charles, your thoughts about climate change and about the hold it has on a lot of people, particularly al gore and the inconvenient truth and the fact that in the wall street journal poll where people write about issues it is now dead last. >> i once heard the former president bush say this is a rich man's issue. and i think there was a certain amount of wisdom in that in this sense. if your other economic problems are -- if you have jobs, you have income and everything else, you can worry about the long-term threats, if that's what they are, like climate change, but by the way, this is not unrelated to the situation in china and india where the admissions are growing most rapidly and where the world's carbon emissions are coming from. those are developing countries prioritizing gret, jobs and income over the environment. and, in fact, it's the same all over the world as that poll showed in the united states. if we had a better economy, i think people would have more of a luxury to worry about climate change. with the exception, of course, being the democratic party donor base out in california, which is the people the president was really addressing with this talk about climate change out there. >> i want to pick up on chuck's point here, george, because whatever the u.s. does, you've got these booming polluting economies in china and india and indonesia. and the u.s. is just a fraction of what 4% to 5% of the world's population -- how much does it matter what the u.s. does in terms of global climate change if you've got carbon emissions run amuck in much of the rest of the world and economies and populations that are much bigger. >> and carbon emissions are coming down here in part because of the increased relicense on natural gas. but mexico city, rio, copenhagen, the climate conferences are a movable feast with a huge carbon footprint as they all fly around to talk to each other. next they will go to paris where they will get 190 nations around a table, a table approximately the size of belgium, i suppose, as which though the united states should give everybody else lots of money, at this point it has happened before. the senate will vote something 95-0 saying we don't think so. and we'll go on to the next movable feast. >> and kirsten, it also feeds into the strong pipeline where it has been delayed for years because of the fact that the impact of the pipeline on the aquaphor in nebraska, but if we don't build a pipeline, all of the oil products are going to end up being shipped to china where they will be used with much less environmental regulation. it's not like if we don't use it it doesn't get used. >> well, not only that, we will continue to consume oil. if we're going to consume oil, we may as well be getting it from our own country. environmental degradation is not environmental degradation so if you're going to consume that oil, why is it okay to ju offload that onto another country? that doesn't really make any g sense. >> so what's going to happen to the climate change/global warming movement? when did global warming become climate change in. >> it became climate change when you couldn't prove there was much global warming anymore. sud suddenly we had to have this catch-all term that meant that any change in the weather i somehow supported the theory. but this is a political issue t for the president.hery. remember, the last thing, the wh only thing he managed to put through was a cap and trade e program in congress. and his left has not forgotten a putting pressure. he doesn't want to do it. it would be deadly politically . for his democratic, his democrats in congress. so he's going to putut things lt executive orders in place.hin >> i want to conclude on an optimistic note in that check development in the developing world is part of the solution te climate lochange.rld just look at japan in the '60s. a terrible environmental polluter because of all the industries and so forth. >> thank you, panel. next up, our power player of the week we hope will make you est question, can you really believe what you see. and a medallist tries to make-believers out of all of us. we'll see. [ female announcer ] a classic macaroni & cheese from stouffer's starts with freshly-made pasta, and 100% real cheddar cheese. but what makes stouffer's mac n' cheese best of all. that moment you enjoy it at home. stouffer's. made with care for you or your family. ♪ [ male announcer ] you're watching one of the biggest financial services cpanies in the country at work. hey. thanks for coming over. hey. [ male annouer ] how did it come to be? yours? ah. not anymore. it's a very short story. come on in. [ male announcer ] by meeting you more than halfway. it's how edward jones makesense of investing. it's hard to describe, because you have a numbness, but yet you have the pain like thousands of needles sticking in your foot. it was progressively getting worse, and at that point i knew i had to do something. once i started taking the lyrica the pain started subsiding. [ male announcer ] it's known that diabetes damages nerves. lyrica is fda approved to treat diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is not for everyone. it may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don'drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. i promise we are not turning this into the ed sullivan show, but a few weeks ago, i met girard at a party, and i think you will be as in awe of him as i am. he does things that i can't explain. i have enlisted kirsten powers to look at this. >> we're going to try something. i like to evoke the unknown. can you hold your hand like this? just try a demonstration here. don't move. little action. did you feel it move? now you have the power to move that pen. if you come close to it with your fenger, you should be able to do it. >> let us get a tight shot. guys, come on. >> okay. here we go. you hud have the power. yes, did you see that? >> yes. >> amazing. >> we're supposed to say amazing. >> i'm amazed by it, too, actually. you had a number that you were thinking of. we're going to try a little action with the pencil here. watch. see that? >> very cool. >> indeed. so now i'm going to ask you to create a random number, you each write three digits on the pad there. you have a -- >> you have the first three, i have the second three. and we did this before the show and came up with a number. we haven't told anybody what the number is. go ahead. >> and you are also going to, in a second, i'm going to ask you to visualize the number. >> my original number? >> yeah. yeah. the original number. >> a three-digit number. >> okay. >> i'm not supposed to look. >> okay. and we're going to try to have kirsten read your minds. >> i'm the weak link. >> is that your number? all right. >> so i have a card here that has the word number on it. when you look at this, i'm going to help you psychically see a number, like a crystal ball into this card, okay, but in a second. you see the word number on here? >> yes. >> all right. very good. if you see a number, i want you to write it onto those things. you start to see a number appear onto the card. >> yeah? >> yes? write it down. >> okay. we have, perhaps a match. what was your number? >> well, not quite a match. but our number, and i've got to say your handwriting stinks. was 805868. >> and we have here 804868. >> i may have flubbed it up. >> you may have flubbed it up. that's very good. >> it's cleeose enough. >> how did you do that? >> it's amazing. >> now you won't see the numbers. you don't see the numbers. you just see the word number. >> something wrote those numbers? >> yeah, that's the numbers that i saw when i looked at it. >> ideas are very powerful things. now that we've established a rapport, an a little connection, i'm going to ask you to draw your picture. could you pass me your pen, your picture. may i have the other pen? so i'm going to do it really fast. when i say go, i want you to go as well. i'm going to try to get an impression. wait, don't start yet. don't start yet. okay. i'm seeing something. i want you to do it in ten seconds flat. i'm starting now. you go. okay. i'm done. >> i can't do it very well, but this was. >> that is mind-blowing. >> that is really. >> ondidn't talk beforehand? >> no. >> you basically just drew a cat? the garfield. >> oh, my god. >> you don't like to be called a magician. and you don't like these to be called tricks. >> that's right. >> so what's going on here? >> i like people to suspend their ideas. ideas are so powerful. and at the right time the idea can be the perfect thing. at the wrong time, it can mess things up. it's important to be fluid in what ideas we think are pro appropriate. by getting people to -- >> are you amazed? >> when we first met, he said think of a number between 1 -10. i said 99. he had written do you know 99 on the paper. go to his website, openfutureinstitute.org. make us disappear. we'll see you next fox news sunday. this is the fox report. tonight, is the president bending the constitution to fit his health care law? critics tonight speak out. and so young with a secret she couldn't keep. a young woman saying she has killed over and over because a satanic cult led her to it. a teenage bride accused of murdering a man she and her husband met on craigslist. now this newly wed says they killed at least 22 people across the country. tonight how police are responding to a killer confession. and new