On this “Face the Nation” broadcast moderated by Margaret Brennan:
- Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
- Rep. Adam Schiff, Democrat of California
- German Chancellor Olaf Scholz
- Dr. Henning Tiemeier of Harvard University
Clickto browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And on this Fourth of July weekend on Face the Nation, we will look at the challenges facing an increasingly divided America.
President Biden’s message after a week of consultation with our closest allies on the issues threatening global stability: All is well with our friends. The biggest threat to the world view of America is from within.
JOE BIDEN (President of the United States): You haven’t found one person – – one world leader to say America is going backwards. America is better positioned to lead the world than we ever have been.
The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He’s not the only one angry with the Supreme Court, as they conclude their most consequential session in years, with far-reaching decisions on religion, the environment, immigration and, of course, abortion rights.
He’s hoping Democrats channel their anger and fear into support for his party in the November midterm elections.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I share the public outrage that this extremist court that is committed to moving America backwards.
But, ultimately, Congress is going to have to act to codify the — Roe into federal law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will assess the impact of these rulings.
The court did rule in favor of President Biden’s plan to scrap a Trump era policy to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico, clearing the way for more migrants to enter the U.S. We will talk with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about how the administration plans to handle the influx.
With rapid-fire local court decisions causing more chaos over where abortion is now illegal, we will look at the state of maternal health in America. How can we keep our abysmal record from getting worse?
Then: What’s next for the January 6 hearings following Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s stunning testimony?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON (Former Aide to Mark Meadows): The president said something to the effect of: “I’m the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol now.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will talk with a key member of the January 6 Select Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff, about the attempts to influence witness testimony unfavorable to the Trump administration.
Plus, more of our CBS News exclusive interview with the new German chancellor, Olaf Scholz.
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. Thank you for joining us this holiday weekend.
We begin today with immigration and the win for the Biden administration last week in the Supreme Court, that of the ending of President Trump’s remain-in-Mexico policy.
To discuss that and more, we want to welcome Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to this broadcast.
Mr. Secretary, good morning to you. Happy early Fourth of July.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS (U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security): Good morning. And the same wish to you, Margaret. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, what happens now that remain-in-Mexico is going away? Are you ending this policy immediately? And what happens to those individuals in the encampments waiting right across the border?
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Margaret, we were very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision.
So, now, in light of the favorable Supreme Court ruling, we have to wait for that ruling to reach the district court that issued an injunction preventing us from ending remain-in-Mexico. So we have several weeks to go before the district court lifts its injunction.
And, until then, we are obligated by the district court’s ruling to continue to implement the remain-in-Mexico program. And we will do so in accordance with law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, those people will still have to wait in the camps on the Mexican side of the border, but what happens to them next?
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Right now, they do have to remain in Mexico.
And then we will actually continue with their immigration enforcement proceedings. Remember, when people are encountered at the border, they are just not merely released into the United States. They are placed in immigration enforcement proceedings. And that is what will occur with these people.
Their proceedings will continue in immigration court, where they will pursue their claims for asylum. And if those claims are unsuccessful, they will be swiftly removed from the United States.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Reuters is reporting that there are right now thousands of people who departed on Friday and are moving towards the U.S. border.
What do you need right now? Do you need more personnel for customs and border control? Do you need more equipment to tackle these smugglers that are exploiting these people?
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Margaret, we are working very closely with our partners to the south, with Mexico, that breaks up very often these caravans of individuals that seek to take that dangerous journey to reach our border, only to be met with the enforcement of our laws.
We have said repeatedly. And we continue to warn people not to take the dangerous journey. We saw so tragically in San Antonio, Texas, one of the possible tragic results of that dangerous journey. And so many people don’t even make it that far in the hands of exploitative smugglers.
And we continue to enforce immigration law, as is our legal responsibility.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are saying right now — what I hear you saying is, do not come.
But those words are not being heard. People are moving right now. So the efforts to stop the root causes are not stopping them. This horrific trafficking, the worst smuggling tragedy in U.S. history this week, with those individuals found dead in that trailer truck, that’s not stopping people.
Are you predicting that this is only going to get more significant from here, that we’re going to go beyond the record surge in migrants?
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: No, I’m not predicting that at all.
And, in fact, in the wake of the San Antonio tragedy — and our Homeland Security Investigations is the lead federal agency investigating what occurred and working with the United States Attorney’s Office in the prosecution of thus far four individuals who have been charged with that heinous crime.
We’re working with our partners to the south, because this is a regional challenge that requires a regional response.
I last week spoke…
MARGARET BRENNAN: But they got past U.S. — the U.S. border officials.
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Oh, so we have a multilayered approach. Margaret.
We, of course, have our inspections at the port of entry with our sophisticated nonintrusive technology. We then have checkpoints that are staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Laredo checkpoint in question, 10,000 to 14,000 vehicles pass through that checkpoint every day.
This fiscal year alone…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, how did this smuggler get these people across? Fifty-three people died.
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: These are very sophisticated transnational criminal organizations.
They have evolved over the last 30 years. In the ’90s, I prosecuted them, and they were much more rudimentary. Now they are very sophisticated, using technology. And they’re extraordinarily organized transnational criminal enterprises.
And we are much more sophisticated using technology and personnel 24 hours a day. You know, we have saved more than 10,000 individuals this fiscal year alone in more than 400 vehicle inspections.
So, can a truck get through, through sophisticated means? Sometimes, yes. But I have to say, we have interdicted more drugs at the ports of entry than ever before. We’ve rescued more migrants. We’re seeing a challenge that is really regional, hemispheric in scope, and we’re addressing it accordingly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, I also want to ask you here at home about what we’ve seen in the past 24 hours.
There’s been this back-and-forth between state and federal law enforcement regarding security to Supreme Court justices and protests outside their home. Does the threat go beyond picketing? Is it specific and credible?
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: So we have seen a heightened threat environment over the last several months over a number of different volatile issues that galvanize people on different sides of each issue.
We in the Department of Homeland Security become involved when there’s a connectivity between the opposition to a particular view or an ideology of hate, a false narrative and violence.
It is that connectivity to violence when we engage. And we are very mindful that the Supreme Court’s decision in reversing and overturning Roe v. Wade has really heightened the threat environment. And we have deployed resources to ensure the safety and security of the Supreme Court and the justices.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, I do want to ask you about what we saw this weekend up in Boston.
A white supremacist group called Patriot Front marched through that city. They recently planned events, a riot in Idaho. You’re seeing this far right group the Proud Boys also disrupt events in California.
How concerned are you right now about these militias?
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Margaret, I have said — and this has been echoed by the director of the FBI — that domestic violent extremism is one of the greatest terrorism-related threats that we face in the homeland today, individuals spurred by ideologies of hate, false narratives, personal grievances to acts of violence.
And it is that violence that we respond to and we seek to, of course, prevent. We are in a heightened threat environment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time today.
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by California Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. He is a member of the January 6 Select Committee and chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Good morning, and good to have you here in person.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF (D-California): Good morning. Thank you. Good to be with you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to pick up on what we just heard from the secretary when we were talking about this far right group the Proud Boys.
This was one of the militias involved in January 6. And in this incredible testimony this past week from Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Trump White House aide, chief of — to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, she testified she heard conversations inside the White House about this far-right group and another one called the Oath Keepers.
Is there corroborating evidence to show that there was communication between those militias in the White House?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: I don’t want to get too far ahead of what we intend to present in our next hearings, but our very next hearing will be focused on the efforts to assemble that mob on the Mall, who was participating, who was financing it, how it was organized, including the participation of these white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and others.
And so we’ll be presenting information we have. We haven’t answered all the questions that we have. We continue our investigation into precisely the issue you’re describing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Hutchinson was specific in saying Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, was someone she heard talking about them.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: Well, and this is one of the reasons we had interest in his testimony and have interest in the testimony of others.
We obviously want to probe any connection between these dangerous groups and the White House. I think we’ve gotten some answers, but there’s still a great deal we don’t know that we’re endeavoring to find out.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s an incredible allegation, of course. So we’ll track that.
I want to also ask you, the vice chair of the committee, Liz Cheney, said not prosecuting former President Trump over the attack on the Capitol would be a much graver constitutional threat to the country than the political difficulties involved with bringing charges.
She said this in an ABC interview. She also said there are possible criminal referrals, not just one, but multiple. Do you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: I do. I do.
You know, for four years, the Justice Department took the position that you can’t indict a sitting president. If the Department were now to take the position that you can’t investigate or indict a former president, then a president becomes above the law. That’s a very dangerous idea that the founders would have never subscribed to, even more dangerous, I think, in the case of Donald Trump.
This — Donald Trump is someone who has shown, when he’s not held accountable, he goes on to commit worse and worse abuses of power. So I agree with Judge Carter in California. I think there was evidence that the former president engaged in multiple violations of the law, and that should be investigated.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But there will be a political calculus to this as well. This is an incredibly divided country right now.
Millions of people voted for the former president and still believe, wrongly, that he won the election. Prosecuting him, isn’t there a very high risk to that?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: You know, it’s certainly not a step to be taken lightly at all.
At the same time, immunizing a former president who has engaged in wrongdoing, I would agree with our vice chair, I think is more dangerous than anything else. And the decision not to move forward with an investigation or not to move forward with a prosecution because of someone’s political status or political influence or because they have a following, to me, that is a far more dangerous thing to our Constitution than following the evidence wherever it leads, including when it leads to a former president.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Your colleague Adam Kinzinger was on another program this morning and said new witnesses have come forward since Cassidy Hutchinson testified.
How many? How significant? Is there more new information that requires more hearings?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: You know, I think there’s certainly more information that is coming forward.
In terms of whether that will materialize into particular witnesses on this topic or that topic, we’re going to wait and see. But we are following additional leads. I think those leads will lead to new testimony. It’s part of the reason we wanted her to come before the public, is, we were hoping it would generate others stepping forward, seeing her courage would inspire them to show the same kind of courage.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Has she inspired the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone to take up the request to speak to him again?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: I hope so.
We’re in discussions with Mr. Cipollone’s counsel. I’m hopeful that we can work out bringing him in for testimony. He clearly has information about concerns about criminal violations, concerns about the president going to the Capitol that day, concerns about the chief of staff having blood on his hands if they didn’t do more to stop that violent attack on the Capitol.
Hard to imagine someone more at the center of things. And I hope that he’ll demonstrate the same courage we saw Cassidy Hutchinson display.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Who is attempting to intimidate the witnesses, as Congresswoman Cheney said? And how significant are the security threats against Hutchinson?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: I have to imagine the security threats are very pronounced.
Certainly, our members are feeling them and hearing them. I have to expect the same is true of her, since the former president and his enablers are going after her. We want to make sure that she is safe. We have several concerns. We have the concern over safety for witnesses. We have concern over people who are trying to influence or intimidate witnesses.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Who’s doing that?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: You know, I can’t comment on specific but…
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you know?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: … we wanted to let the country know and anyone in the former president’s world know that, if they seek to intimidate witnesses, they will be referred for prosecution. And we hope that Justice Department will move against them.
But we also have a concern about the fact that some of these witnesses are sharing lawyers, that, essentially — and this gets to some the testimony revealed during the Cassidy Hutchinson hearing — that they’re reviewing transcripts, that they’re essentially coordinating, potentially, their stories, or that witnesses feel they’ve got big brother watching them when they sit in for their depositions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, on that, I want to ask you.
One of the things that Cassidy Hutchinson described having been told by another individual is about this tussle in the Beast, the president’s vehicle, where he allegedly lunged for the wheel demanding to be taken to the Capitol. The committee’s already interviewed Tony Ornato, the White House operations director, and Secret Service agent Robert Engel.
Was this the first time you heard about that incident? Did they back that up or contradict that testimony?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: I can’t go into the specifics of the prior testimony.
But I can say I think we’d be interested in having them come back and others that can shed light on this. But the most important thing is there doesn’t appear to be any dispute over the fact the president was furious that he could not accompany this armed mob to the Capitol.
That seems to be undisputed. And the fact that the president knew that the mob was armed, wanted the magnetometers down, so they could take their arms to the Capitol, that doesn’t seem to be disputed by anyone except Donald Trump. And he has, as we’ve seen in the past, no credibility at all.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly, before I let you go, with your Intel hat on here, the bullet that was used to kill American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh has been handed over to the United States.
It’s undergoing ballistics testing right now. If Israeli soldiers did indeed kill her, what consequences should there be?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I think there needs to be an independent investigation, so that we understand exactly what happened and who was responsible and why.
Once we know that, then I think we can talk about what the consequences should be. But I do think there needs to be an objective investigation. And I’m glad that the United States can help play a part in that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman Schiff, thanks for your time.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Supreme Court ended its term with a number of historic and some controversial rulings.
For a breakdown and a look at what comes next, we turn to CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford.
You have been incredibly busy, Jan.
We had a number of these decisions this week that reflect the will of the conservative majority. President Biden called them extremist — an extremist court. How do you characterize the decisions?
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, this is a court that has shown it has clearly turned firmly to the right.
And it could have sweeping implications for American life, the democratic process. Taken together, what we have seen this term is that this is a court that is not going to get involved in these divisive policy issues, unless that is clearly within its purview.
If it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then that goes to the democratic process. That’s what we saw in the abortion rights case, overturning Roe vs. Wade, was not specifically mentioned; therefore, we’re not going to resolve it. Back to the democratic process.
And if Congress can’t do his job, and Congress isn’t acting, this is a court that says administrative agencies and unelected bureaucrats, they can’t jump in and fill those vacuums if Congress isn’t acting and try to set major policy questions. That was the case involving climate change and the EPA.
So, I mean, the bottom line is, this court, unlike a more liberal court, is not jumping in to fill these vacuums where Congress or the legislatures are failing to act. And that is going to mean a profound difference in the democratic process and the rule of the courts — the role of the courts.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it’s not clear.
JAN CRAWFORD: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, it’s not clear if lawmakers will take up these issues.
JAN CRAWFORD: With dysfunction in Congress, absolutely.
But they’re saying the ball is in Congress’ court or the state legislatures when it’s a policy dispute, if it’s not specifically addressed by the Constitution.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, to that point, because now we are seeing all these states, their courts, their legislatures have arguments over what to do next, particularly on the issue of abortion.
Kentucky, Florida, Utah, Louisiana, really significant legal battles taking place about abortion protections. What is your takeaway so far? I mean, is there a commonality to where they’re ending up?
JAN CRAWFORD: Right.
So, remember, 26 states asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade and let them set their own policies on abortion rights. And that’s what we’re seeing now, the court agreed. And we’re seeing that play out across the country. Already states, almost a dozen states have laws in place ready to go to completely ban abortion in their states.
So you’re seeing abortion rights advocates go into those states and file lawsuits in state courts under state constitutions, because the Supreme Court said, it’s not in the federal Constitution, but if a state has more protective rights in their constitutions, then work it out there.
And so that’s what we’re seeing now. We’re seeing these legal battles play out as — the same time as the state legislatures are passing their own laws, blue states passing laws to enshrine abortion access or protect it even more, for example.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
And the chaos has led to some people mistakenly thinking abortion is banned or something. It’s not. It’s…
JAN CRAWFORD: That’s been the most striking thing, I think.
The Supreme Court did not ban abortion nationwide. They just said there’s not a right to abortion in the Constitution.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Therefore, it goes back to the democratic process, and states can set their own policies. If Congress wants to do something, Congress can, but it’s not in the Constitution.
So now you have seen this patchwork of laws. And you’re seeing legal challenges under state constitutions. But you’re going to see different laws in different states. If you’re in New York or California or Boston or Illinois or any of those Democratic states, this ruling will not affect your life at all.
Your — the laws in your states won’t change. It’s those red states that we see that will try to ban or greatly restrict abortion…
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will follow that.
JAN CRAWFORD: … and already are seeing that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what’s coming.
JAN CRAWFORD: Oh, God.
JAN CRAWFORD: Oh, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you say, “Oh, God”?
That’s not a good reaction, Jan.
JAN CRAWFORD: It’s — as big of a term this was — and, of course, whenever the court overturns a nearly 50-year-old precedent, as they did with Roe vs. Wade — next term could be as consequential, divisive as this term, or more so.
They have major cases already on the docket. They will continue to add them throughout the year. They have already got a case challenging affirmative action in college admissions. I expect the court is going to end that.
They have got a case involving kind of a conflict between free speech and gay rights and whether a state law can prohibit someone from saying on their Web site they oppose same-sex marriage and don’t want to do that business in designers and artists.
They have got voting rights. They have got an election procedure case that could have huge implications for elections. I mean, this is just the beginning…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: … and a new justice stepping into a divided court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: An historic new justice.
Jan, you will be back with us a lot, I understand, based on what you just sketched out.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for your analysis.
We will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: If you can’t watch the full Face the Nation, you can set your DVR.
Plus, you can watch us through our CBS or Paramount+ app.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation.
Stay with us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Last week we traveled to Madrid to speak with the new chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, during a week of international meetings among top U.S. allies who are faced with a growing list of problems, including rising food and energy prices exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Chancellor Scholz is one of the few European leaders who still speaks to Vladimir Putin. So that’s where we started our conversation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When you speak to Putin, does he acknowledge the sanctions? Does he acknowledge how much his economy has been hurt? Or does he just not care?
OLAF SCHOLZ (Chancellor Of Germany): I think he cares, but he will not really admit it. So you get some idea –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it hasn’t stopped him.
OLAF SCHOLZ: You get some idea that it really is hurting him and that he understands the deep impacts of our sanctions on his economy. And I’m always mentioning it because it’s necessary to say it.
This is now happening to a country that is not that advanced, that is really needing all the technologies from the rest of the world for having a similar standard of living and for having the chance to be part of gross (ph) — indeed world economy. And this is now the real damage to the Russian economy that they have no chance to do this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When will Putin run out of weapons, run out of funds, or can he — this continue for years?
OLAF SCHOLZ: No one really knows. He is – he is the head – the leader of a very great country with a lot of people living there, with a lot of means. And he is really doing this brutal war with – and — and he prepared for it. So, he will be able to continue with the war really a long time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe that Vladimir Putin will stop at Ukraine?
OLAF SCHOLZ: I (INAUDIBLE) that all what we do will help to give him the view that this is not working and that he will not be successful.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Your country has earned this reputation of overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to Ukraine. Ukraine received its very first delivery of German howitzers, this artillery, last week. Why did it take that long? We’re in the fifth month.
OLAF SCHOLZ: So, we took a very, very hard decision to change political strategies we followed for many decades, never to deliver weapons into a country that is in a conflict.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
OLAF SCHOLZ: When we decided, for instance, to send the most modern howitzer, which you can buy on the world market, which is in use in Germany, it was very difficult to organize that this could be used in the war because you have to have some training. And we had Ukrainian soldiers in Germany. And when the training ended, in the end they came with the weapon, with the howitzers to Ukraine, and they are now in use.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the United States is doing that. They’re providing weaponry within 48 hours sometimes of the president signing, and carrying out training. Why did it take this long for Germany?
OLAF SCHOLZ: I think — I think you should understand that there is a difference of a country like the United States spends that much for defense, which is a very big investment, and you have a lot of weapons at your stocks. Together with the United States and the United Kingdom, we decided to deliver multi-rocket launchers to Ukraine now, which are –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Those haven’t been delivered yet.
OLAF SCHOLZ: We are sending them and we are doing it with the means and ways we have, and with the training. And once again, there are a lot of very experienced people who yesterday looked at Google and today they know how to do things.
But I will tell you, there are weapons, but you have to have your training and you have to have it not in Ukraine, you have to have it here in our countries. And so we will always see that Germany is one of the countries that is doing the most, because what we are sending now is the most sophisticated technology you can use. There is also anti-ballistic — there are also weapons we give to Ukraine that they can defend the air.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The anti-aircraft missiles you’ve promised? Radar you’ve promised?
OLAF SCHOLZ: The anti – no, they can defend a city from — against the rockets and missiles that were sent there from Putin. And this is very expensive and very effective technology, but they will get it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The delays have led to speculation that it’s not about getting the supplies, it’s about the will of the government to actually deliver them, and whether there’s fear of provoking Putin or whether it’s years of budget cuts to your defense industry that have made it just not possible for the German military to act quickly. How do you respond to that?
OLAF SCHOLZ: Those who are looking to the facts see that we are doing what is feasible. We are changing the way, how we spend money for defense. And this is the big increase, which will change the situation and will give us the chance to be more quick in reaction to a threat that is coming to NATO, the alliance, or to our country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Germany is providing about $2 billion in aid to Ukraine. That’s roughly what you spend per month on gas from Russia, on coal, on energy supplies. So, while you’re helping the Ukrainians financially, you’re also essentially giving Vladimir Putin a financial lifeline.
OLAF SCHOLZ: He cannot buy anything from the money he’s getting from us because he has all these sanctions on imports for modern technologies and things he is looking for. So, this is what he’s making very angry.
But to be very clear, when we decided on sanctions together and with all our allies, we said always we will do it in a way that we harm Putin more than us. And many countries in Europe are depending, for historical reasons, and because they are near to the place, and it is the nearest place to get the gas on the imports of gas. And will now whole Europe is deciding to go out of this dependence. This will change the scenario even on the world market.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But Vladimir Putin can use that money elsewhere, just not in the west.
OLAF SCHOLZ: But he cannot buy —
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, is it still $2 billion a month that Germany is sending to Russia?
OLAF SCHOLZ: It is always decreasing. And we draft the sanctions in the way that they hurt Putin. And this is what we do. And, once again, we are now doing real investments into technology and pipelines and ports. And I know there are people that sometimes think that when you are having – taking a decision one afternoon, the next morning you have a port and a 40 kilometers pipeline.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, it takes time.
OLAF SCHOLZ: But in the real life this is not happening. When Europe is deciding to go out of the import of – of gas from Russia, this will have consequences.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It will have huge – I mean this is the equivalent of them declaring war on you, by cutting gas supplies to Germany.
OLAF SCHOLZ: Hundred – hundred — this is –
MARGARET BRENNAN: This isn’t just your choice. They’re using that as a weapon against you.
OLAF SCHOLZ: This is, obviously, the case. And this is why I was starting to discuss the question what to do if the gas delivery will be reduced right when I entered office. We should be very much prepared that we will have high energy prices all over the world in all countries.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So Germany’s heavy industry association, BDI, warned a halt in Russian gas deliveries would make recession inevitable.
OLAF SCHOLZ: It is not — it will be very tough if we will have a shortage of energy supplies. Obviously, all our countries, all our life is depending on the supply of energy. And, obviously, a lot of countries — the most countries of the world are depending on the supply from (INAUDIBLE). And so we have to prepare for a difficult situation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Vladimir Putin is weaponizing inflation. He’s weaponizing food. Is he right to bet that he can fracture the western alliance by making it harder for Europeans and Americans and everyone else to afford food in these months ahead?
OLAF SCHOLZ: You are very right. The shortages of food, many people in the world are seeing now as a threat to them, are the direct consequence of what Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the war he is imposing on the country. You’re right that all the rising energy prices are also a direct consequence of his doing. And he is — he is the one that is doing the wrong things. And we are always discussing this with our partners on the globe. We are starting an initiative to support countries that have not enough food with food.
MARGARET BRENNAN: If you can’t reopen the Black Sea Ports, if Putin doesn’t agree to let the food out of Ukraine, how do you lower global food prices?
OLAF SCHOLZ: We are now collecting money for supporting the poorest countries, that they will be able to deliver food to the people. And this is our international initiative. We organized together with others for food security, and we will continue to do that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it risks global instability.
OLAF SCHOLZ: It is a real problem and it is a real consequence of Putin’s war. And this is why it is even more necessary that we support the people.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, it also puts pressure to end this conflict sooner. What is your timeline for when this can end?
OLAF SCHOLZ: The conflict will end when Putin understands that he will not be successful, tis idea to – just to conquer part of territory of his neighbor.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Members of the German government have admitted it was a mistake to be so dependent on Russia for so long.
OLAF SCHOLZ: I think it was not right that we were not prepared to have at any time the chance to change the one that is delivering gas, oil and coal to us. So We should have invested all over Europe in infrastructure that gives us the ability to change the supply from one day to the other. And I think this is the lesson that has been learned in Europe and in many other places, that you have to prepare — be prepared for a situation like this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Biden also talks about this potential conflict between democracies and autocracies. Is that the biggest threat on the horizon?
OLAF SCHOLZ: We should be clear about the threats that are coming to our future, and this is coming from autocracies, yes, because they tend to be aggressive. And this is an aspect we should be very much aware of. And I am. And this is why I organized our meeting we had in Germany with the G-7 group of democratic — economically successful democratic states that we invite partners from all over the globe that are also democracies for making it happen that the democracies are strong.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And by strong, it also comes with 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe and 300,000 NATO response forces in Europe. This isn’t just diplomacy, this is muscle.
OLAF SCHOLZ: This is. And it’s necessary.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Chancellor, thank you for your time this morning.
OLAF SCHOLZ: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Our full interview is on our website and our YouTube channel.
We’ll be back in a moment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Leaders at the G-7 last week pledged an additional $4.5 billion to address what the secretary general of the United Nations is calling an unprecedented global hunger crisis. But aid organizations are warning it won’t be enough, as Russia’s war in Ukraine severs supply lines and inflation continues raging.
CBS News foreign correspondent Debora Patta is in South Sudan with this report.
DEBORA PATTA (voice over): Hunger is a never-ending season in South Sudan. For three years, this country has been battered by one climate change shock after another. Apocalyptic flooding in the north, crippling drought in the southeast.
Millions were already starving. Then came the war in Ukraine, triggering the U.N.’s biggest humanitarian crisis this century as food and fuel prices soared, tipping this country over the edge.
In Guit (ph), floodwaters have still not receded.
DEBORA PATTA (on camera): I’m standing in a place where people used to live. These were their homes. This was the land that they used to cultivate and live off. And now it’s completely submerged under water.
DEBORA PATTA (voice over): Sarah Nyawal’s (ph) entire village is gone. She has nothing to eat but the water lilies she’s collecting.
In the community of Canal Pigi (ph), every child brought to nutritionist Mona Shaik (ph) during our visit was severely malnourished.
SARAH NYAWAL: I’m afraid, you know, any child like that, we are very close to losing them.
DEBORA PATTA (on camera): Really?
SARAH NYAWAL: Within days.
DEBORA PATTA (voice over): There was Nyanjima Gatlak (ph), who walked for over a month to get food for her weak and listless eight month old baby, Kang (ph). And Nyabany Kong (ph), who already lost one child to hunger and hasn’t eaten for two weeks. Her mother-in-law, Nakoni (ph), is wasting away.
Battling almost impossible odds, the World Food Program is doing its best. But since Russia invaded Ukraine, their costs have risen exponentially. WFP’s Marwa Awad (ph) says they’ve been forced to suspend aid to nearly 2 million of the 6 million people they feed here.
MARWA AWAD: We’re having to do humanitarian triage. This is the worst thing that any humanitarian or aid worker has to do. We must do something to help.
DEBORA PATTA: Subsistence (ph) farmer Nachapa Lamunia’s (ph) own mother starved to death. This was her last bag of food rations for the year. It will be finished in two weeks.
Just tell the world we need food, she implored. And when you visit again, she said, we will smile and tell stories of how we survived and find ways to help others in need.
No one should die of hunger. There’s enough food to feed everyone on earth. The stories we heard continue to haunt us. The people of South Sudan, the world, must not forget.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Debora Patta reporting in South Sudan.
We’ll be right back.
MARGARET BRENNAN: According to the Gates Foundation, the maternal mortality rate is higher here than in any other developed country. And the elimination of federal protection for abortion rights only underscores that reality and the risks ahead.
Dr. Henning Tiemeier is the director of the Maternal Health Task Force at Harvard University and he joins us now.
Good morning to you, Doctor.
HENNING TIEMEIER, M.D. (Maternal Health Task Force Director at Harvard University): Hello, Margaret, and good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning.
I think this is incredibly important because I want to put the issue of abortion itself aside for a moment and talk about pregnancy in America as these states rewrite these laws.
So, how is it possible that in the richest country in the world we have the highest maternal mortality rate? And how do we stop it from getting worse?
HENNING TIEMEIER: Well, I have to say two things to that.
First of all, there seems to be an issue with the data. We think it’s higher than in other developed countries, so it is higher. But some of the uptick we’ve seen recently is partly due to poor data collection. So, that has been corrected, but it is higher.
So why is it higher? We think that has to do with the general health of women in America. So, it is a background risk. And it is partly due to poverty, to poor health care during pregnancy, and, importantly, poor care after pregnancy, after delivery.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It — the mortality rate among black mothers is three times higher than white women. Why?
HENNING TIEMEIER: That is correct. It is much higher. It is substantially higher. And it is — you must understand that there’s about 700 women dying during or after labor or in the first months after delivering. Seven hundred per year. And we know that most of these deaths are preventable.
And they, indeed, occur in minorities more often and in particular in black women. And why that is, is essentially one of the biggest challenges of public health. And we see that as the top of the iceberg of poor health in women and poor health in black women.
And there are several reasons that seems to go from poverty, to discrimination, to poor care for this group of women.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So according to the CDC, nearly 40 percent of all abortions performed in this country happen among black women. So, in laying out what you did, I would base the assumption that you are projecting that the death rate for these mothers will also climb?
HENNING TIEMEIER: I don’t think we have good projections in numbers at the moment because that will depend on many of the issues, actually, that you touched on before, on the legal issues, on the access to abortion in other states. But we know that abortion occurs in people of poverty and in minorities much more often. We know that they have difficulties to access abortion outside the state. So we think it will impact their physical and mental health.
How many deaths, nobody knows.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
HENNING TIEMEIER: It is very hard. It will – it will – it’s — I wouldn’t want to quantify that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No.
HENNING TIEMEIER: I couldn’t put a number. It depends on so many other things. Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you know, we looked at Medicaid coverage in this country. It covers about 40 percent of all births in the country. And the federal government is trying to get states to take more money to extend maternal health care so it’s not just cut off at two months, but it goes for longer so women can get pelvic exams and they can get other things after they give birth.
States like Mississippi aren’t doing that. What’s the consequence if you don’t have access to health care after two months?
HENNING TIEMEIER: So, what you’re pointing out now is one of the big issues and one of the things that could be addressed quickly. There are numerous states, Mississippi is one of them, but don’t forget Texas is another one, and that counts in big numbers, that have not expanded, as we say, Medicaid. They have not accepted the Affordable Care Act offer to expand health care to women in the first year.
And I would actually say it should go further than that in the first year after delivery. That means that you have very little right and very little coverage. So only the very, very poor in these states are covered, but a big number of poor women, of relatively poor, low income women, women that struggle to make the time and the money to be ensured, are not covered for things like mental health, physical checkups, even — so they will not have the pelvic examinations that are needed, you are right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So America looks a lot different now than it did in 1973. Brookings says about 40 percent of U.S. households have women as the prime bread winner. So, I want to ask you how important it is, in your view, from a medical perspective, that women be able to take recovery time after childbirth, because, of course, as you know, in this country, there is no federal guarantee of paid family leave. So if these women have to work to support their family, their job’s in question, essentially, or at least being paid for it.
HENNING TIEMEIER: I think this is such an important issue. It’s, in a way, underrecognized. I know that the vice president addressed some of this. But it is very important to see that we need many measures to improve maternal health. One of them would be to improve prenatal care and the other is indeed to improve postnatal care, but also to support families. And it is in particular poor disadvantaged families, buying them time. So, giving them leave — paid leave is very important because having a child is a stress on the system.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
HENNING TIEMEIER: Imagine you have three children, you have a fourth one, then you need – you know, if you’re making a minimum low (ph), you will not manage to – to make your ends meet.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
HENNING TIEMEIER: You will not find the time to breastfeed. We see that breastfeeding is – is not going up as we wished it would because of this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
HENNING TIEMEIER: So, I argue, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Doctor –
HENNING TIEMEIER: And many of my colleagues, that we need time. Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will continue to cover your research. Thank you. We’ll cover those issues on this program as well.
I have to leave it there, though.
So, we’ll be back in a moment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Here in the nation’s capital, we are surrounded with reminders of the challenges our forefathers faced in times of great conflict here at home and abroad. There are tributes to those who fought for America’s freedom from tyranny, to those who led Americans through some of is darkest times in our 246-year-old history.
There are collections of the histories of oppressed minorities who fought for equal footing among their fellow Americans. And monuments to the titans who fought for equality and justice, a fight that continues to this very day.
Sprinkled throughout there are bits of wisdom from these giants. When we look at them today, one might think that maybe they knew where we were headed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: They seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We can gather strength from looking back as we struggle to go forward.
Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I’m Margaret Brennan. Happy Fourth of July.