On this “Face the Nation” broadcast moderated by Margaret Brennan:
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California
- Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova
- Jim Taiclet, chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin
- Rep. Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina
- Eric Holder, former attorney general
Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation: The future of a woman’s right to choose an abortion is in jeopardy in many states across the country, as an unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the political equivalent of an earthquake.
There is turmoil around the nation, as Republicans and Democrats scramble to figure out what the political and the practical impact of new abortion restrictions could be.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be with us. Plus, we will hear from South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
Then: Ukraine’s military is on high alert this weekend, bracing for more attacks, as Vladimir Putin plans to celebrate Russia’s annual Victory Day.
Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, will be here with the latest.
Plus, we will hear from the CEO of Lockheed Martin, Jim Taiclet, about what his company is doing to help provide weapons for the war effort in Ukraine.
And, finally, we will take a look at the politics of this year’s round of congressional redistricting fights with former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder. His new book is “Our Unfinished March.”
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.
It has been a turbulent week across the country, as one of the most esteemed institutions in our government, the Supreme Court, experienced something that happens all the time here in Washington, the leak of a document to the media. But this leak was explosive.
Not only does it draw into question the sanctity of the court, but, if the draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito holds, Roe vs. Wade may be overturned early this summer. Currently, abortion access is federally protected up to the point of viability.
If overturned, abortion could become illegal or significantly restricted in 23 states. Republicans have been reserved in their reaction, but Democrats are furious.
And we go now to the top Democrat in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who joins us this Mother’s Day from San Francisco.
Happy Mother’s Day to you, Madam Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D-California): Thank you. Happy Mother’s Day to you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you.
And before we get to abortion, we did have this surprise visit on Mother’s Day by the first lady, Dr. Jill Biden, to Ukraine.
Last Sunday, you were in Kyiv meeting with Ukraine’s president. How quickly can Congress deliver this $33 billion in aid that has been promised?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I think we will be able to do it as quickly as possible.
We have great bipartisanship in terms of our support for the fight for democracy that the people of Ukraine are making. We have respect for the strategy of the president of Ukraine. And we have a recognition of the need for weapons, for sanctions — more weapons, more sanctions, more economic assistance, and more humanitarian assistance.
I was very proud to be there with my colleagues to talk about those very specific issues and our bipartisan support for them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think you can get that done before the end of the month?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I think we have to.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Yes, I think we have to.
The specificity with which we discuss these matters with the president, president of Ukraine, the connection that we have with the ambassador, whom you will have on the show later, we’re very current on the needs and the urgency. And, again, we will have bipartisanship as we go forward with it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk to you, of course, about abortion. California’s Governor Gavin Newsom said Democrats have failed to target Republicans on this issue.
Here’s what he had to say:
(Begin VT)
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM (D-California): Where is the Democratic Party? Where’s the party? Why aren’t we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort. And, yes, they’re winning. We need to stand up. Where’s the counteroffensive?
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Madam Speaker, why were pro-abortion rights Democrats outmaneuvered?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I have — I have no idea. The fact is that we have been fighting for a woman’s right to choose, and that is to choose.
We have been fighting against the Republicans in the Congress constantly because the fact is, they’re anti — not just anti a woman’s right to choose in terms of terminating a pregnancy, but in terms of access to contraception and family planning and the rest, both domestically and globally.
This is a constant fight that we’ve had for generations — I mean, decades, I should say…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: … in my case in the Congress.
And the — we had been bipartisan early on, support for a woman’s right to choose, until the politics have changed. And that’s what happened to the court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: The science hasn’t changed. The — but the court changed. And, therefore, they’re deciding that it will be different.
I have no idea why anybody would make that statement, unless they were unaware of the fight that has been going on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you have been fighting for decades on this issue.
But back when Democrats held majorities in the House and the Senate, 2009, when you were speaker, President Obama was asked about codifying Roe versus Wade and said abortion is a moral and ethical issue and — quote — “not the highest legislative priority.”
Do you think it was a mistake for him, for other presidents not to push harder when Democrats had the majority?
(CROSSTALK)
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: If I just may, the focus we have right now is an urgent one in order to try to improve — and try to improve this, whether we’re calling it fake or draft decision, whatever it is. I think that this is a waste of time.
The fact is, in ’09, we really did not have a pro-choice Democratic Party. I had to fight against some of the people who did not want to pass the Affordable Care Act because they were concerned that it might enable more freedom of choice. It really didn’t go down that path.
Right now, we do have a pro-choice Democratic Congress, and we passed the law months ago, in last, I think, September.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You did in the House, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: It’s been a while. It’s a number of votes.
The — but the fact also is…
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the votes aren’t there in the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, the Senate is — you’ll have to talk to the Senate about the Senate.
But I do think that it puts an urgency on what’s happening in the election. Two more — one or two more senators could sweep back the filibuster rule for this purpose, and then women would have a right to choose.
This is about something so serious and so personal and so disrespectful of women. Here we are on Mother’s Day, a week where the court has slapped women in the face, in terms of the disrespect for their judgments…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: … about the size and timing of their families.
So, the fact is, let’s keep our eye on the ball. And the ball is in the court of those justices, one of whom at least said over and over again that precedent — that precedence has been established again and again on Roe v. Wade and that — so, this decision is about being anti-precedent and anti- privacy, and has serious ramifications as we go — as we go down this path. And it has to be softened.
I don’t think there’s a good outcome, but there’s a better outcome as far as this is concerned.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of the…
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: And, again, let’s just be prayerful about this. This is — this is about respect for privacy.
What’s next? What’s next? Marriage equality? What’s next, contraception? What is next?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you need to write bills to enshrine those things? Those things you just said you’re concerned about, do you need bills to enshrine those now? Birth control access.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Excuse me?
MARGARET BRENNAN: The things you think might be next, do you need to legislate to enshrine those in law right now to protect them, if you think the court may overturn?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: What is really interesting, Margaret, about this is, for decades, I have been trying to say to my Republican friends and women who care about a woman’s right to choose, who contribute to Planned Parenthood and all of those organizations, you can’t do that and expect — you’ve got to weigh in with your own party on this.
Barbara Bush, early on, Republicans were very much about family planning and respect for women. So, the thing is, is that most people always thought that this debate in the Congress was about the termination of a pregnancy, but it wasn’t.
My Republican colleagues have said to me on occasion, we’re not for any family planning domestically or globally, because I was trying to get them to support us on some global family planning issues.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: We’re not for any of it.
And most people don’t know that. And we don’t want to be — you know, this is a fact. This is a fact. That’s what they believe. And they’re true to their beliefs.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But given the — given the urgency of with which you’re speaking, the Reproductive Choice Act, two pro-abortion rights Republicans in the Senate, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, put that forward. Leader Schumer says it’s not even worth putting to a vote.
But when you do have Republicans interested in working together, is that a strategic mistake? You say this is an emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, it depends on what the legislation is and what the impact that it has on women’s lives.
The enshrinement of Roe v. Wade into the law is the way in order to protect a woman’s right to choose. I don’t know why they say they’re for that and can’t be for this legislation. Should we all have a discussion and find our common ground? Always. Always.
But this — you’re either for the enshrinement of Roe v. Wade or you’re not. It’s the law of the land 50 — or nearly 50 years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: year
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: The precedence — precedence of it has been reaffirmed, what, 14 times.
And just because there has been…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: The Republicans were very clear when they had a presidential campaign that their campaign was to elect a president who would appoint judges who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. It didn’t say the science would change.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: And one more point in that regard.
Mitch McConnell pulled back the filibuster rule in order to have those justices confirmed by 51 — by not needing 60 votes, by 51.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: So, this is a political decision on the part of this…
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: The rule of law in our country should be respected. Women should be respected to make their own judgments with their family, their doctor, their God.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
Speaker Pelosi, thank you for your time this morning.
Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: The CIA director said yesterday that Russian President Vladimir Putin is doubling down on his invasion of Ukraine and does not believe that he can afford to lose. Violence is now escalating in the east.
CBS News senior foreign correspondent Charlie D’Agata is in Ukraine — Charlie.
CHARLIE D’AGATA: Good morning, Margaret.
The Ukrainian government blames Russian forces of bombing a school where dozens of people were taking shelter in Luhansk. Here in Kramatorsk, the bombardment has worsened too. This is some of the destruction left behind after a rocket attack struck several residential neighborhoods.
(Begin VT)
CHARLIE D’AGATA (voice-over): Amid the ruins, everywhere evidence of ordinary lives violently interrupted, a woman’s shoe, children’s toys scattered on the ground, a favorite jacket now hanging from a tree.
A few miles further east in Luhansk, emergency crews dig for survivors in a bombed school, where Ukrainian authorities say 90 people were taking shelter. In Mariupol, government officials say, while all women, children and the elderly have finally escaped from the besieged steel plant, as many as 2,000 Ukrainian forces remain, some medics, some badly wounded, some still fighting to the end.
We traveled to the battered village of Velyka Novosilka, around 100 miles north of Mariupol, where 10 Russian battalion groups, around 10,000 troops, have already been redeployed.
U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence says those Russians are now massing on the outskirts of this town. It’s clearly come under artillery attack. The explosions are ringing out now.
We found Irina Ilyenko and neighbor Valentina Hogenova in the ruins of their homes.
(WOMAN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: All around, shredded metal, downed trees, shattered windows, belongings blown out of bedrooms and onto branches.
Can you describe what happened?
(WOMAN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: “I was just sitting in the corridor when the explosions happened,” she said, “covering my ears and praying. The explosions deafened me.”
Wow.
(WOMAN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: “Oh, my God,” she says.
Does that happen a lot?
(WOMAN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: There’s no water or electricity. She’s desperate to flee, but says she can’t leave her bedridden husband behind.
(WOMAN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: “I just want peace to come to this land,” she said. “I don’t want any more war and anger.”
(End VT)
CHARLIE D’AGATA: That village is right on the path of Russia’s main advance from the south.
Here, Kramatorsk is on the firing line from the north. The Russian strategy is to close that gap and surround tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops — Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Charlie D’Agata, thank you.
And some breaking news this morning. CBS News has learned that the Biden administration is sending a small group of American diplomats, including the acting ambassador to the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, to counter Russia’s Victory Day celebrations.
State Department sources tell CBS that the embassy hopes to resume operations and raise the American flag there in the coming weeks.
We turn now to Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.
Good morning. Welcome back to the program.
OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States): Good morning, and happy Mother’s Day.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Happy Mother’s Day to you as well and to all the mothers out there.
President Zelenskyy has said that he will speak with President Biden and other world leaders this morning. What are you expecting in terms of further support?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Thank you.
Well, as we celebrate the 77th also anniversary of the end of the World War II, it’s critical that we all do everything possible to stop the war that Russian regime, very much like Nazi regime, started in Europe again.
So the president will raise everything that we have been discussing during the past — this past 73 days, more military support, more sanctions, more financial support to Ukraine. We count on all of our friends and allies to help us with everything, so we can stop Russia while it’s still in Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Putin is expected to make a speech tomorrow in Red Square. It’s not clear exactly what he is going to announce, but the CIA director said yesterday Putin is doubling down. What exactly are you preparing for?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, we know that there are no red lines for the regime in Moscow, so we’re preparing for everything.
They said they will not go into — that they were not going to attack us. And they did. They said that there is no war in Ukraine for the past eight years. And we know it was. They said they didn’t take the Crimea. And they did. They said they’re not killing civilians, and yet we see everywhere the deaths of women, children. They torture them. They rape them. They kill them.
So we can count that Putin and imperialistic Russia will do everything bad they can possibly try to do. The question is, are we all prepared, the civilized world, to do everything possible to defend our democracy and freedom?
And Ukraine certainly is not only ready, but shows for the past 74 days that we bravely defend those values and defend our homes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There is some speculation that Putin could officially acknowledge the country is at war and then start conscripting soldiers, which would help him build up that offensive in the east.
Is that what you’re expecting?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, that would be the first time when Putin will say the truth, that it is war and that he is in dire need of conscripting soldiers.
I hope that then it will be evident for all — to all Russians what they are doing in Ukraine, that it’s an aggressive war. They attacked a neighboring country, a peaceful country. And the question is, are they prepared to have more tens of thousands dying in Ukraine for no reason at all?
MARGARET BRENNAN: The U.S. said a few days ago that Russia is planning sham elections and they’re going to try to annex parts of your country, Donetsk, Luhansk in the east, also Kherson.
They’re already renaming schools and streets, teaching Russian curriculum, forcing the use of their currency. So, what does dismantling this part of your country actually do? Because if you want to get to a peace negotiation, they’re already sort of swallowing parts of your country and trying to integrate it.
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, in addition to all the war crimes they’re doing in Ukraine, this is part of their M.O. We saw it in Donetsk and Luhansk, which they occupied in 2014. We saw it in Crimea.
So they tried to create the sham elections. They cannot find enough Ukrainians to participate in them, as we saw in Kherson, as we see in other places. We will never recognize it. The whole world will never recognize it. And we will do everything possible on the battlefield, but also diplomatically, to restore our territorial integrity and sovereignty.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the world will never recognize it?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: I’m positive.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Meaning?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: I’m positive.
Ukraine has to be whole within the internationally recognized borders.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, those sanctions the West has put on would stay in place…
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … is another way to say that.
You know, we are seeing these reports out of Mariupol that there were some successful evacuations. It’s just a dire humanitarian situation there. Can you tell us what is happening on the ground, who is left there?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Our brave defenders, lots of wounded, a lot of doctors are still there.
So, as of yesterday, we saw the reports. And our president has done everything possible to evacuate civilians. Now, while that is a success, of course, to get the civilians, women and children out, we have to remember that 95 percent of Mariupol is destroyed, that tens of thousand civilians died in Mariupol, were killed by Russians.
Actually, more Mariupol citizens were killed by Russians in two months than by Nazis during two years of Nazi occupation in — during the World War II. So, we are calling on everyone to do everything possible and impossible to get our wounded soldiers, to get our heroes, to create all possible corridors in order to get our people still out from Azovstal, where they bravely defend the Ukrainian flag and Ukraine in Mariupol.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s that steel plant where…
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … fighters have been holed up with some civilians.
President Zelenskyy said influential states were involved in efforts to rescue hundreds of wounded fighters there. Who exactly is helping? What does that mean? Is that on-the-ground help? Is it just diplomatic?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, we know that U.N. secretary-general has been in direct contact with our president, but also with others.
There are a lot of diplomatic discussions with other states on that. So I think, after the war, we will be able to talk about all the efforts that were — that were done…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Israel, for example.
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: But, on the ground, it’s — it’s our brave Ukrainians.
And while evacuating civilians, we have to know that so many of our soldiers from Azov steel, from this plant who were trying — helping civilians to get out have been killed and wounded during these attempts too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How significant is the intelligence sharing that the West is providing to Ukraine? We hear a lot about the weapons, but what about the actual sharing of information?
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: I think the sharing of information between Ukraine and the West with all of our friends and allies is at the level which we never had before. And we really appreciate it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, thank you for your time today.
AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation.
So, stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to turn back to the fight over abortion rights with Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina. She’s in Charleston this morning.
Happy Mother’s Day to you, Congresswoman.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE (R-South Carolina): Thank you. And happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there today.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to have a conversation with you here and then we’ll continue it on the other side of this break.
But, first up, you are against abortion, but you believe that victims of rape and victims of incest should still have access to abortion. Do you think those exceptions should be backed up with a federal law?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Well, absolutely.
I’m someone who — I am pro-life, but I do support exceptions for rape. I’m a rape victim myself. And when you realize what’s happened in your life, the trauma, the emotional, the mental, the physical trauma in a woman’s life, that decision — she should make that decision with her doctor and between her and her God.
And I have worked to support those exceptions in my life, not only as a state lawmaker, but now as a member of Congress. And South Carolina has a fetal heartbeat bill that was signed into law that had those exceptions because I told my rape story.
And those stories are often missed and criticized, and women are attacked when they tell those stories. And that’s something that I have talked about extensively throughout the years as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you have. And I want to talk to you about those as well, because there is so much nuance here.
I’m going to take a quick commercial break.
And I want to ask you in more detail what kind of legislation you think could pass at the federal level, what needs to happen at the state level.
So, stay with us, if you would.
We will be right back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
So, stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
We want to continue our conversation with South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
Congresswoman, you have spoken publicly about being molested when you were 14, raped at age 16, and how that has shaped your feelings and convictions about rape.
I read that you said that it took you 25 years to talk about your attack and that you only shared it with your mother and one of your good friends. So, I wonder what you think about some of these restrictions in states that would require rape victims to provide police reports in order to obtain an abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE:: Right. Well, I can’t speak to other states. I – – from experience as a state lawmaker, I know that South Carolina’s fetal heartbeat bill would not have passed without exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. And I told that story. I felt it was really — a really important story. A story that’s often missed and not told because women are afraid.
And you can even see in public comments and on social media when I talk about it, the ways in which that I get attacked for telling that story. And one of the things that I think, you know, partially that’s missing in this conversation is that, when you have victims. When Ohio did their fetal heartbeat bill, there was a 10-year-old girl that had been found to be pregnant, who was raped repeatedly by her father. And so, as — I now it’s part of the Republican Party platform, the vast majority of Republicans support those exceptions for rape, and incest, and life of the mother. And it’s important for — for some of us to step forward and tell those stories that are often missed in all of this as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
So, to be clear, you would support a vote in Congress, federal legislation, to enshrine those exceptions?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Well, yes, and I think that — I think one of the things that’s missing, and I’m glad that you’re bringing this up, in all of the conversation, the media coverage about Roe vs. Wade being overturned, is that what this does — it’s not an all-out federal ban on abortion, but it puts it back into state legislators and into Congress.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: You saw Congress a couple of years ago ban late- term abortions, for example. And so what this does is it puts it back to the states, it puts it back into Congress to deal with and figure out.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: And it was even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who we all know was a — was working for women’s right and thought there was a constitutional right for women to have an abortion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: She did.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Knew that Roe v. Wade was flawed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, she did. She said that. She said that back in the ’90s. It was a problem in her confirmation process.
But — so let’s talk about states then.
The governor of South Carolina, your home state, fellow Republican, said if Roe v. Wade is overturned, he wants further restrictions without those exceptions of rape or incest. He’s considering restricting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Is that too restrictive?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Well, I would only support legislation in South Carolina that had exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother. I don’t believe that that would pass without those exceptions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But what about six weeks of pregnancy?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Well, that — that bill has already been signed into law, the fetal heartbeat bill for South Carolina that he signed, I guess it was last year, had a — it was — it was six to eight weeks is when the heartbeat is found, but that bill had exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother. So that law is already on the books in South Carolina. And it will be up to the legislature to determine if they want even more restrictions on it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But — but that’s where this gets messy, right, is if you’re saying it’s up to the states. When we look at national polling, it shows that there is a majority of Americans who want to kind of keep the status quo.
At the state level, do you actually think the South Carolina legislature is in tune with public opinion here because, I mean, our polling shows more than two-thirds of Republicans say abortion should be generally available or available with stricter limits. Is it a political mistake to just paint this as pro-life, pro-choice?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Well, I think that some of the polling is murky, too. It depends on how you ask the question and who’s paying for the polling. There is some polling out there that says that there are only 25 percent of Americans, some say up to 30 percent, that want abortion in ever case. They don’t want any restrictions. So that says to me that there’s a vast — a vast majority of Americans that are OK with restrictions on abortion. And we have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. If you look at Europe, there are many European countries that don’t allow abortion after the first trimester or after 15 weeks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Twelve weeks or so.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: And in Poland, for example, they don’t allow any abortions unless there it’s rape, incest or life of the mother. And so it is a complicated issue.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. It’s a bit of an outlier there in Europe. It is.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Right. But, you know, Portugal is 12 weeks. Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
Congresswoman, I want to quickly ask you, you’re being primaried by a Trump-backed candidate. Do you think your position on this is going to make it more complicated for you? Do you think President Trump is still the leader of your party?
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: Well, my position on life with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother is in line with my district, it’s in line with the majority of, I believe, voters in my state as well. We’ve raised over $4.5 million for this race. My opponent has raised less than $300,000. And, you know, I’m working very hard to win this, not just by single digits, but by double digits. And I think he’s been given bad advice.
My opponent lost — had her top secret security clearance revoked for leaking classified information about our military.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: I live in a very fiscally conservative district, and she voted for the highest tax hike in South Carolina history.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: And so there are very stark contrasts in our record.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE: And we’ve raised the most money. We have the highest polling. And I’ve got 40 days to go until the June primary and I’m looking forward to winning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll watch for it.
Thank you, Congresswoman.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We now turn to Jim Taiclet, the CEO of defense giant Lockheed Martin, which makes some of the weapons the U.S. is sending to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Good morning to you, sir.
JIM TAICLET, CEO, LOCKHEED MARTIN: Good morning, Margaret. Happy Mother’s Day to you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you very much for saying that.
We hear time and again one of the most powerful tools that the Ukrainians have are these anti-tank, Russian tank busting missiles known as javelins. That’s what your company jointly produces with Raytheon.
How quickly can you scale up production to get more to them and to backfill what the U.S. has given up?
JIM TAICLET: Sure, Margaret.
Well, the president visited us in Troy, Alabama, to thank the workforce earlier this week and we really appreciate what he’s done for us.
We are, therefore, on our side, accelerating our investment in that factory and in our workforce there. So we’re already investing ahead of time to buy tooling, to expand the plant and also support our suppliers to get ready to ramp up production. So, right now our capacity 2,100 javelin missiles per year. We’re endeavoring to take that up to 4,000 per year. And that will take a number of months, maybe even a couple of years to get there because we have to get our supply chain to also crank up as we do.
So, we think we can almost double the capacity in a reasonable amount of time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Raytheon had said that a different system, the stingers, they couldn’t even get going on ramping that up until 2023. But you can start when, exactly?
JIM TAICLET: We’re starting now to ramp it up because we have an active production line right now that the president saw. And, also, we’ve got a supply chain that’s active, in addition to that. So we can start turning up the heat now and ramping the production immediately because of those circumstances.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said — well, you implied your basically doing on spec, right?
JIM TAICLET: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re anticipating that order is going to come through from the U.S. government.
But you’re a businessperson. You have to plan ahead. We don’t know how long this war is going to last. The CIA says, you know, Vladimir Putin thinks he’s got to double down here. So, how long are you planning for with this ramp up?
JIM TAICLET: We’re planning for the long run, and not just in the javelin, because this situation, the Ukrainian conflict, has highlighted a couple of really important things for us. One is that we need to have superior systems in large enough numbers. So like javelins, stingers, advanced cruise missiles, equipment like that. So, we know there’s going to be increased demand for those kinds of systems from the U.S. —
MARGARET BRENNAN: Throughout — OK.
JIM TAICLET: And for our allies as well and beyond into Asia Pacific most likely too.
The second really valuable lesson was control of the air space is really critical. So, the Ukrainians are managing to control their air space. The Russian air force doesn’t have free reign over the entire country. And the reason that they don’t is because the Ukrainians can still fly their aircraft and they also have a pretty effective integrated air and missile defense system. So products and systems like F-16, F-35, patriot missiles, THAAD missiles, we know that there’s going to be increased demand for those kinds of equipment, too, because the threat between Russia and China is just going to increase even after the Ukrainian war, we hope is over soon. Though two nations, and regionally Iran and North Korea, are not going to get less active. Probably they’re going to get more active. So we want to make sure we can supply our allies and our country what they need to defend against that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So what do you need to do that, because you did say supply chain is an issue? I read that there’s over, what, 250 microchips or semiconductors in each javelin.
JIM TAICLET: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We know there’s an effort in Congress to get legislation to try to create more semiconductors here instead of relying on Asian suppliers. Can you do this scale-up without that kind of legislation?
JIM TAICLET: It will be extremely helpful to have the bipartisan innovation act passed, for example, because we do need to invest more in the infrastructure in the U.S. so we have domestic supply, especially in microprocessors. And so our production line can run today, but in the future we’re going to need more domestic capability in microprocessor, not only design, but manufacturing, testing, et cetera, so that were have assured supply of those microprocessors in the future.
And there will be other inputs too, but that’s one of the highlighted ones.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But we’ve heard on this program time and again from business people how important that is to get done. Congress still hasn’t voted on it or voted it through.
JIM TAICLET: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have any commitments from anyone here in Washington to get this to the president’s desk soon?
JIM TAICLET: Well, we know that there’s a lot of support for it both in Congress, in the administration, the Commerce Department, et cetera.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it takes time to scale that up?
JIM TAICLET: Yes, it does. It takes years. And so we’re collaborating right now, for example, with Intel. It’s one of our partners in trying to drive what we call 21st century security into national defense. And we’re going to need the most advanced processors and we’re going to need them to be customizable to defense needs as well. So having that domestic capability again to go all the way through production and testing is going to be more important in the future than it is even today.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You also make F-35s fighter jets, you referenced there. Germany is now trying to buy them. I mean you have a lot of buyers in Europe right now potentially.
Do you have enough workers to meet all of these requests?
JIM TAICLET: We have enough now, but we know, like, for example, in the F- 16 line as well that we’re building up in South Carolina, actually, we need more workers. And so we’re recruiting heavily. We’ve got a very strong workforce in Fort Worth, Texas, where we make the F-35s. So that production line is running just fine now. We’ve got sufficient employees there to do that. But in other parts of the country, and ultimately in Texas, we’re going to need to actually hire more people.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, thank you very much for giving us insight to your business.
JIM TAICLET: Glad to do it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And for being here in person.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Every 10 years the 50 states redraw their political boundaries based on population changes. Some states can gain seats in Congress, others might lose some. The process is almost always messy as state parties try to secure an edge for the decade to come.
CBS’s Ed O’Keefe took a look at four redistricting fights.
(BEGIN VT)
ED O’KEEFE (voice over): In four big states this year, two red and two blue, Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree on a redistricting plan, so courts were asked to intervene.
New York’s highest court tossed out a map drawn by the Democratic controlled state legislature saying lawmakers did an end run around a non- partisan commission.
New York lost one House seat in the census, and although Republicans currently hold eight House seats, the new map drawn by Democrats would have make it difficult for Republicans to win more than four.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They’re trying to silence the voices of the people in this district.
ED O’KEEFE: The court has appointed an official to draw up yet another map due this month.
In Illinois, after the state lost a House seat, Democrats eliminated two districts where Republicans were expected to win. Republicans challenged the new map in court, but it’s likely to stand.
The GOP is also guilty of creative cartography. Texas is gaining two seats in Congress. And although minorities accounted for 95 percent of the state’s population growth in the last decade, Republicans redrew the map to protect their incumbents by eliminating competitive districts were Democrats were making gains.
The Justice Department and civil rights groups sued.
VANITA GUPTA, ASSOCIATE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Texas’ redistricting plans will dilute the increased minority voting strength that should have developed from these significant demographic shifts.
ED O’KEEFE: And in Florida, which also gained a House seat, Republican governor Ron DeSantis insisted state lawmakers draw a map that eliminated an historically black congressional district, stretching from Jacksonville to Tallahassee, potentially giving Republicans four more seats.
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): We are not going to have a 200 mile gerrymander that divvies up people based on the color of their skin. That is wrong.
ED O’KEEFE: Democrats have filed suit, but they’re running out of time before November’s elections.
STATE SEN. TRACIE DAVIS (D-FL): The black population in Florida that lives north of the I-4 corridor, their voices will be diluted.
ED O’KEEFE (on camera): When the dust settles after this decades round of redistricting, it remains to see whether either party will emerge with a distinct structural advantage nationwide. Now, whether the new lines are fairly drawn, well, that’s a matter of political preference.
For FACE THE NATION, I’m Ed O’Keefe in Washington.
(END VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we turn now to former Obama administration attorney general, Eric Holder. He started a group in 2016, the National Democrat Redistricting Committee, to help the party redraw congressional lines. And he has a new book out called, “Our Unfinished March.”
Good morning to you.
ERIC HOLDER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Glad to have you here.
You know, in the book you write both parties have embraced gerrymandering when they were in control of state governments, but you say Democrats were caught asleep at the wheel when Republicans started investing 12 years ago in some of these local races.
You know, critics call your strategy just sue to blue. That it’s just all about partisanship. How do you respond to that?
ERIC HOLDER: No, ours is a fight for fairness. And, yes, we’ve brought a lot of lawsuits — successfully brought a lot of lawsuits in order to make sure that the process is done in a fair way and so that the American people actually pick their representatives as opposed to politicians choosing their voters. And so sue to blue, that’s what they say when you’re winning in court, which is what we have done at a whole bunch of levels.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think Democrats have an advantage then going into the midterms versus where you started out?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, I think we certainly stopped the Republicans when they said they wanted to secure a decade of power in this next decade based on the redistricting that they were going to do. We have blunted that effort and we certainly have more fair maps than we did coming out of the last redistricting cycle.
The thing that really worries me, however, is that we have 40 percent fewer competitive seats than I think we should have as a result of what both parties have done.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You say this is about fairness, but you haven’t challenged any Democratic gerrymanders. Ed O’Keefe laid out some of those examples there. Both of the maps passed by Democrats were thrown out by courts in Maryland and in New York. Do you have a problem with what happened there?
ERIC HOLDER: I indicated my opposition to what had happened, what the legislature did in Maryland. I agreed with the judge, which he did there. And In New York what I’ve said is that those are not the maps that I would have drawn in New York. My guess is that after the courts look at what happened in New York, you will see maps that are different but not fundamentally different.
I think you can’t compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How so?
ERIC HOLDER: They are — if you look at Texas, which is getting two additional seats strictly as a result of the increase in the Hispanic population, they have not increased that — the power of Hispanics in Texas at all. In fact, they have created more majority white districts in Texas. The map that you see in New York reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
ERIC HOLDER: So there’s a census basis — census bureau basis of what’s happening in New York that does not exist in the — in Republican states.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You heard there what is happening in Florida and what Governor Ron DeSantis describes. He says that what he is doing with redrawing is race neutral. I know you strongly disagree. Are you saying the gerrymandering there is rooted in racism?
ERIC HOLDER: It’s certainly race conscious. What he is doing there, by doing away with a traditionally black seat is certainly a factor. Race is a factor there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you think it’s to intentionally disenfranchise?
ERIC HOLDER: That’s certainly a component of, I think, their thinking. They’re going after Democrats. And the fact that that — the Democrats that they’re going after happen to be black I don’t think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was — where we said that you should have additional representation for a black — the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about Alabama because as I understand it, the Supreme Court has tried not to directly get involved in what they deemed political gerrymandering, but they have signaled a willingness to hear cases that involve issues of race. There are still elections scheduled in November, in the state of Alabama, even though the court will hear this case. Do you think that the maps being redrawn in Alabama will ultimately be deemed to be illegal and therefore the election should be invalid? Is that what you’re saying?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, you know, it’s interesting — no, it’s an interesting thing. Well, they’re going to have an election in November based on maps that judges, including two Trump judges, said were inappropriately, unconstitutionally drawn. The Supreme Court said too close to the election and so we’re going to allow the election to go ahead on those maps that were found to be defective.
Now, that the Supreme Court will ultimately do with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was the basis for the lawsuit in Alabama, will remain to be seen.
But that’s one of the things I talk about in my book, this notion of us getting to some structural changes, that we need to look — we need to ban partisan gerrymandering. We need the structures of our democracy if we’re going to try to — if we’re going to try to save it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you have a lot of different recommendations in the book, but, I mean, it’s a long to-do list. And the problem that you sketch out here, you say that the entire democratic system, essentially, is broken, as I understand it. Unrepresentative Senate, unnecessary anti- democrat Electoral College, gerrymandered House of Representatives, panoply of state legislatures, and a stolen Supreme Court. A stolen Supreme Court. You say every person having an equal say in our democracy, one person, one vote, is far from a reality.
ERIC HOLDER: Yes, I think that’s true.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re saying the entire system is broken. What — so if Republicans win control of Congress in November, is that election — does it not have integrity? Do you not accept the outcome of it?
ERIC HOLDER: No, I think your premise goes a little far. I wouldn’t say that everything is broken, but there is —
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was reading from your book there.
ERIC HOLDER: No, what I’m saying — I would say is, there is a substantial amount of our structure that needs to be repaired, that needs to be examined. And I think we should — what I’ve tried to put out — point out in the book is that we have faced these issues before and that we’ve had heroes and heroines in our history that have faced similar kinds of issues and through sacrifice, commitment, they have made a difference. And we have the capacity, I think, to make these kinds of changes. Banning partisan gerrymanders.
If you look at the Supreme Court, we have two seats, one stolen from the Democrats that Merrick Garland should have now. That — that seat was not filled because it was to close to an election. And then Amy Coney Barrett was placed into a seat while people were actually voting. I mean those are the kinds of things that I think need to be addressed. And what I talk about in the book is to say, look, we should term limit the justices, 18 years, and that every president should have an opportunity to nominate two justices per term and to try to take some of the pressure out of this — the partisanship and the confirmation process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Republicans would, obviously, disagree with your characterization of how that played out.
But I do want — Merrick Garland, you mentioned, he’s now in your old job as attorney general.
ERIC HOLDER: Uh-huh.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There have been critics of him who say that he isn’t being aggressive enough around the prosecutions regarding January the 6th. Do you think that’s right?
ERIC HOLDER: No one knows. I mean, you know, I have great faith in Merrick and in the people at the Justice Department. We won’t really know how aggressive they have been until they are before a camera and announcing a decision, either to indict certain people or not indict certain people. And here’s my prediction, at some point people at the Justice Department, perhaps that prosecutor in Atlanta, are going to have to make a determination about whether or not they want to indict Donald Trump. The air is going to be —
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you do it?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, I think there’s going to be sufficient factual information. And I think that there’s going to be sufficient proof of intent.
And then the question becomes, what’s the impact of such an indictment. I’m an institutionalist. My initial thought was not to indict the former president out of concern of what — how divisive it would be. But given what we have learned, I think that he probably has to be held accountable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll leave it on that incredible note.
Mr. Holder, thank you for your time and for sharing your book.
We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s it for us today. Thank you all for watching. And to all of the mothers watching, Happy Mother’s Day to you. Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I’m Margaret Brennan.
