Hillary Clinton's first interview after becoming the Democratic presidential nominee will be on Fox News Sunday.
Reaction to Supreme Court ruling on Michigan's ban on race-based college admissions; Gov. Pence talks gun control, Ukraine, political future
Written by Chris Wallace / Published April 27, 2014 / Fox News Sunday
Special Guests: Jennifer Gratz, Shanta Driver, Gov. Mike Pence
This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," April 27, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace.
Does the Supreme Court decision upholding Michigan's ban on race-based college admissions mark the beginning of the end for affirmative action?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today's ruling is a wonderful victory for the voters of Michigan.
WALLACE: With similar bans in seven other states, what does it mean for creating diverse student bodies in our nation's public universities?
Jennifer Gratz's rejection by the University of Michigan inspired the case, debates civil rights attorney Shanta Driver, who argued for affirmative before the Supreme Court.
Then, Republican presidential hopefuls court pro-gun advocates.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: The safety of our families is not something that people should be forced to hope government can provide.
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: We cannot let them win. We cannot let them change who America is.
GOV. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens don't threaten our families. They protect our families.
WALLACE: We'll talk with Indiana Governor Mike Pence fresh off an overseas foreign policy trip about gun rights, Ukraine, and his political aspirations.
It's a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.
Then, Jeb Bush opens the door to a 2016 presidential run. Is another Bush-Clinton matchup in store? Our Sunday panel handicaps the potential dynastic showdown.
And -- we'll have a report from Rome where hundreds of thousands gather to watch history as two popes become saints.
All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."
WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.
The Supreme Court dealt a big blow to affirmative action this week, siding with Michigan which along with seven other states has banned public universities from using race as a factor in college admissions.
Joining us now Jennifer Gratz, whose rejection from the University of Michigan inspired her to lead the drive to ban racial preferences. And Shanta Driver, a civil rights attorney who argued before the Supreme Court in defense of affirmative action.
And welcome to both of you to "Fox News Sunday."
SHANTA DRIVER, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Thank you.
WALLACE: I want to begin by revisiting previous rulings by the Supreme Court on affirmative action, rulings that still stand. In 2003, the court said this, "Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions."
Ms. Gratz, what's wrong with limited use of race to achieve that diversity?
JENNIFER GRATZ, XIV FOUNDATION CEO: Well, I think that we have a horrible history in this country with respect to race. But what the people of Michigan have said and what I think our Constitution quite frankly commands is equal treatment for all individuals. The government should not be picking who the winners will be and who the losers will be based on race or for that matter gender.
WALLACE: OK. And in 2007 case, another case which still stands, Chief Justice Roberts wrote this, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Ms. Driver, what's wrong with that?
DRIVER: Well, I think that there is a false premise that there isn't racism in America anymore and that there isn't inequality. And what is so profound about this decision is that it wasn't just about affirmative action but it went -- took us back to Plessy v. Ferguson. I think that's the most civil rights decision.
WALLACE: We've got to say, that was an 1898 Supreme Court ruling that basically said "separate but equal" is constitutional in which allowed for the segregation of schools.
DRIVER: And this decision not only allows for the segregation of schools in Michigan and California and other places, but it restructured the political process. And now any other group in the state of Michigan alumni, donors, anyone who wants a change in the admission system to favor the chances of their sons and daughters getting in can go to the Michigan region and lobby them. Black, Latino and Native American, if we want a change, we have to get a state constitutional amendment.
WALLACE: All right. I want to pick up on that, because that was precisely the point in her long dissent Justice Sotomayor made. She said exactly that. If you're an athlete, if you're the child of an alumnus, a legacy, any other group, you can lobby the admissions department to say give special weight, preference to their admissions offer. The only group that can't are racial minorities, is that fair, Ms. Gratz?
GRATZ: That's not true. No one based on race or gender can lobby the region to give preferential treatment to anyone based on race or gender. The people of Michigan and the people in seven other states have said take race and gender off the table. Make it --
WALLACE: But you agree with me. I'm saying an athlete can lobby and a legacy can lobby, but someone can't on the basis of race.
GRATZ: That's true. But it's not just minorities that cannot lobby. No one based on their race.
And, you know, in terms of minorities and majority -- you know, Asians are by no means a majority in this country. And, yet, they are discriminated against when they apply to colleges.
I think that Justice Sotomayor's dissent was unfortunate. I think good people can disagree on this issue, but I think she took it that the discourse to a level that was beyond what we've seen. And I think that her behavior, quite frankly, was unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice.
WALLACE: Let's take -- this ultimately comes down to people like Jennifer Gratz. Let's take her specific case and put up her situation. She applied to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1995. She had a 3.8 GPA in high school and a bunch of extra curricular activities.
She sued and won in the Supreme Court arguing that less qualified students got her spot because of racial preferences in affirmative action.
Ms. Driver, I want you to address Ms. Gratz and tell her why she shouldn't be offended by that and feel that she got a raw deal?
DRIVER: Well, I think there are a lot of people that got in who were not racial minorities, who were white, who had all kinds of privileges that Ms. Gratz actually didn't have. She didn't come from a rich family. She didn't come to one of the suburban schools where you get extra points because those schools admit so many people to the university. She's not a child of generations of alumni that went to the University of Michigan.
But she didn't challenge any of those students getting in above her, only black, Latino and Native Americans. And to me that is singling out the very people who historically have been denied access to the university and saying you can't get in.
WALLACE: OK, Ms. Gratz, your response? Talk back to --
GRATZ: I did not challenge the University of Michigan because I did not get in. I did not think that a spot was mine. I challenged the University of Michigan because their policy was discriminatory. They treated people differently based on skin color.
When I applied, they had completely separate standards. Literally different pieces of paper that said what the result would be and the only difference was someone's skin color. If you're black, Hispanic or Native American, the University of Michigan made that distinction. If you're black, Latino or Native American, you are judged by one standard. And if you're anything else, you are judged by a separate or much higher standard.
It later became that you needed 100 points to be accepted to the University of Michigan, a perfect ACT or SAT score under an applicant, 12 points. An outstanding essay earned an applicant between one and two points. A legacy, because that has been a subject here, earned an applicant between two and four points.
But if you were black, Hispanic or Native American, you were automatically awarded 20 points.
Look, I'm fine with the university --
WALLACE: OK, wait a minute. Now, respond to her on that.
DRIVER: I think that -- I think if you look at K through 12 education and you look at the experiences of black and Latino high school students in the state of Michigan, you compare any Detroit school to any majority suburban white school in the state, the difference is night and day.
And what those points represented was recognition of the inequality in this society that still structure opportunity. It wasn't a gift to those students. It was a recognition that those students that worked the hardest, that did the best coming out of those inferior schools deserve the same chance as the white counterparts that have so much more privilege to go there.
WALLACE: Ms. Gratz?
GRATZ: But that's not true. The University of Michigan when they had their point system, if you were black, Hispanic or Native American, you were automatically awarded 20 points. And if you were of a lower socioeconomic background, you could also earn 20 points. But you could only do one. You could only be awarded 20 points once.
So, what that meant was that the people who were getting points because of their skin color were from wealthy and middle class backgrounds. They were not the people in the city of Detroit.
DRIVER: That's not true, that's not true.
GRATZ: And quite frankly, there are not any other races that are in attendance in those schools. A rural school in some instances failing our kids, the fact is that the greatest distinction right now is wealth and income, not race.
WALLACE: All right. I want to pick up on another subject, because interestingly enough, I should say the point system that Ms. Gratz talked about, that's what she won. The point system was taken out. The idea that the specific points for being a minority, that's what the Supreme Court struck down. Although they said race can continue to be a consideration. But the court didn't rule in this week specifically on affirmative action. What they ruled on was the right of the state to ban affirmative action. It is really about the state's ability in this case through an amendment, a referendum which went 58-42 in favor of banning.
Even, Ms. Driver, I want to put up on the screen what a liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, said in voting with the majority against, in favor of the ban. He said this, "I continue to believe that the Constitution permits though it does not require the use of kind of race conscious programs that are now barred by the Michigan Constitution."
In other words, affirmative action, he believes, is constitutional. But it's not required.
And the question is why not let the people decide? If in their wisdom the people of Michigan vote 58-42, we don't race, then who are you to say they can't decide the policy of the state?
DRIVER: White voters are an overwhelming majority of Michigan voters. And they voted two out of three to ban affirmative action. Black voters who are a tiny minority of the voters in Michigan, just because of the demographics of the state who are about 15 percent of the electorate, 90 percent black voters voted against the ban. We've come back to a place where states can determine what equality is. And where the federal courts are saying --
WALLACE: I disagree with that. Justice Breyer would say there are constitutional rights but affirmative action is not a constitutional right. He said it's permitted but not required.
Let me bring in Ms. Gratz.
Your thoughts about this issue and do you see that this is now because it is banned in eight states, the upholding of a ban in Michigan, is this now a blueprint for other states?
GRATZ: I think it is a blue print for other states.
What Ms. Driver fails to recognize is her group focused on race here.
The Michigan voters, they eliminated race and gender preferences in public contracting and public employment and public education. Are we to believe that voters in Michigan are also sexist for eliminating gender preferences?
The fact is that the people of Michigan commanded equality. And that's exactly what our U.S. constitution should command is equal treatment under the law for all individuals.
WALLACE: I want to get to one other point. People are talking about well there are remedies. And one of the remedies is that you don't use race but you use socioeconomic factors, things like do you come from a poor school? Are you the first kid in your family to go to college? And they've done that in some of the states which ban like California and they found in a majority of schools the percentage of Hispanics and African-Americans is actually gone up. Is that another way to solve this problem?
DRIVER: It isn't, because race and socioeconomics are not the same.
I just want to say this is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of states rights. Where white majorities can disenfranchise minority communities and now prevent us from getting higher education. This decision cannot stand.
WALLACE: Ms. Gratz, you get the final word.
GRATZ: I think it's unbelievable that someone would sit here today and say that prohibiting racial discrimination is a racial decision. I think that that tells us where the level of discourse is today.
Good people can disagree. But we can't have name-calling and baiting like this. And what the people of Michigan, the people in seven other states and now the United States Supreme Court have said is that people can choose to ban race preferences and command equal treatment under the law for all individuals regardless of race.
DRIVER: But I disagree. The old Jim Crow is now the new Jim Crow. It does have a name.
WALLACE: Ms. Gratz, Ms. Driver, thank you both. Fascinating debate, one that will obviously continue. We'll stay on top of this. Thank you both.
What do you think about racial preference in college admissions? Let us know on Facebook and continue the conversation with other FNS viewers.
Up next, as the standoff continues in Ukraine, the U.S. and our European allies say they're ready to impose new sanctions on Russia. We'll have a live report and talk with our Sunday group when we come right back.
WALLACE: The U.S. and European Union are talking about imposing new sanctions on Russia as soon as tomorrow because of its failure to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine. For the latest, we bring in FOX News correspondent Leahy Vittert live from eastern Ukraine -- Leland.
LELAND VITTERT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, the president has been trying to walk a fine line in this crisis, keeping the Europeans involved with the sanctions while at the same time making the sanctions tough enough that Moscow notices and perhaps walk balk the steps to invade Ukraine.
He spoke to that point earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to be in a stronger position to deter Mr. Putin when he sees that the world is unified and the United States and Europe is unified rather than this is just a U.S.-Russian conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VITTERT: And this tough talk has not changed much on the ground. The pro-Russian separatists still hold a number of hostages including a group of international monitors that they paraded out in front of a press conference today calling them prisoners of war. The Russian foreign minister has said he will try and help get these people freed and use his country's influence. So far, that proved to either be an empty promise or the militiamen are not listening.
They are demanding a prisoner swap from Ukrainian government in Kiev and say they want to split the eastern half of this country off into something akin to a Russian aligned satellite state. Ukrainian troops have surrounded their strong hold the last couple days but so far have not moved in with their tanks and armored personnel carriers.
The Ukrainians are not giving up. We went out to the border with Russia and there they have built a 12-foot wide, nine-foot deep trench that is designed to slow down or perhaps even stop the 40,000 or so Russian troops that are poised on the boarder awaiting the invasion order from President Putin.
Military experts will tell that you would have been a brilliant defensive strategy in World War I, about 100 years ago, but in the modern time, it would be a little bit more than a speed bump if the Russians decide to make good on those threats to invade eastern Ukraine -- Chris.
WALLACE: Leland Vittert, reporting from eastern Ukraine, Leland, thanks for that. Fascinating.
Time now for our Sunday group. Syndicated columnist George Will, author of the new book, "A Nice Little Place on the North Side", about Wrigley Field at 100. Amy Walter from the "Cook Political Report", GOP strategist Karl Rove, and FOX News political analyst Juan Williams.
While the rhetoric ratcheted up sharply this week with both Russian and Ukrainian officials, beginning to talk for the first time about military force. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERGEI LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: If we are attacked, we will certainly respond. The Russian citizens being attacked is an attack against the Russian Federation.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK, INTERIM UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translator): The world has not forgotten the Second World War. But Russia is already keen on starting a third world war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: George, why are we now in this standoff?
GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, what Lavrov has said is that Russians in distress who are outside of Russia are -- will be treated as an attack on Russian Federation. Secretary Kerry said, we want Russia to use its influence with what we call the militants -- that's the preferred euphemism today for these gangsters who are doing Russia's work.
Lavrov says, no. We want Ukraine not to conduct military operations within Ukraine against these people.
Now, it was several -- about two weeks ago, I guess, that the supreme commander of NATO said this is a military operation. So, we're already in the sense of war.
I guess the stakes now are, looking ahead to May 25th when there is supposed to be a presidential election in Ukraine, and it's clearly Putin's objective I think to stop this.
WALLACE: Amy, there's been a lot of criticism of President Obama's handling of the crisis in Ukraine. But aside from hawks, people like John McCain or Lindsey Graham, you don't get a lot of push up on Capitol Hill from Republicans about the U.S. getting more deeply involved in Ukraine.
AMY WALTER, THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Right, especially when it comes to military intervention. I mean, we obviously have the very war-weary country that doesn't know what to do about this.
Look, it's taken its toll on the president as well. I mean, you see his approval rating overall has gone down, just his job approval rating. But his handling of issues on foreign policy continues to dwindle as well.
So, there is a sense that I think from the American public that they don't really like what they see in the president. They would like to see more. They don't know what it is, but they know what they don't want to see -- which is any sort of involvement militarily by the United States.
So, this is a very difficult box that the president and Republicans find themselves in right now. But where it's taking the toll is on the president's overall approval.
WALLACE: So, where we're likely headed, and perhaps as early as tomorrow, is more economic sanctions against Russia but targeted sanctions, sanctions against individuals, targeted -- sanctions against individual institutions like banks, not sanctions against sectors like the mining sector or the energy sector. This is how Secretary of State John Kerry framed the question this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The window to change course is closing. President Putin and Russia face a choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: A couple questions to you, Karl.
First of all, do you think that Putin thinks that he's got a window and that it's closing in on him? And secondly, what can -- what can the president do given the box that I think Amy accurately described where the public very much doesn't want military involvement and where sanctions, first of all, we're fighting to get the targeted sanctions with our European allies and, you know, sanctions against whole sectors of the economy seem to be off the table at this point.
So, what does the president do?
KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: Well, look, the American people don't know what we want to do because the president doesn't appear to know what he wants to do. He is behind the power curve right from the get go.
Putin needs to be surprised by the depth and strength of America and our allies' reaction, which means these sanctions need to be surprisingly tough, as tough as they can possibly be. If someone of them need to be unilateral, make them unilateral, because if we, for example, say certain Russian banks can't do business with U.S. banks, that may mean they do business with German or British or French banks. But they want access to the American market.
Second of all, we need to have a strategic framework. The president needs to understand that this is a lemon -- our relationship with Russia over Ukraine -- turn it into lemonade. Look what happened in Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Georgia when the Russians made aggressive moves. It pushed them to the west. For example, the Azerbaijanis worked out with the Georgians a -- two pipelines to get their oil and gas to the west without having to go through Russia. And why did they do that? Because they were reacting to Putin.
WALLACE: -- in the case of Ukraine.
ROVE: Well, in the case of Ukraine, we ought to take steps immediately to begin to say we will sell U.S. natural gas to Europe. And we will expedite the creation of the facilities necessary to do that. This week, we had an important bit of news which was that some of the central European countries are making agreements with Ukraine for reverse flow. That is to say to be able to sell gas from Central and Western Europe to Ukraine to relieve them of the necessity of buying Russian gas.
But there needs to be a strategic framework that says what are we going to do to take advantage of this moment that we didn't want but that has been given to us? Ukraine has been lost to the Russians for a generation. The question is, are we going too to act thoughtfully enough, sensibly enough, and strong enough that the Ukrainians and central Europeans and the Western Europeans say, you know what? We stand with the United States and NATO. And we come out of this stronger rather than weaker.
WALLACE: Juan, I want you to weigh in on this. And I also like you to reference what Leland Vittert talked about in his report, which was that there were independent monitors from the OSCE who were there -- just military independent monitors to monitor the situation. They didn't have weapons. They've been taken hostage by the pro-Russian militants, thugs -- whatever you want to call them, George. And now, the people holding them say we want a prisoner swap with some of their people being held by the Ukrainians.
This is a bad situation.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: It's horrible. But it is -- I mean instructive in the sense that this is the new warfare. I mean, the way that Putin is going about this, the way that it's not a marked invasion that the world can say oh, he's invaded Ukraine. To the contrary, what you're doing is he's undermining the Ukrainian government in terms of the forthcoming elections that George spoke of, but also establishing autonomous region under his control, because the Ukrainian military is not sufficient to deal with these, you know, anonymously uniformed thugs, if you will that, are coming and taking control of these areas, mostly now Russians speaking areas in Ukraine.
But I just want to come back to this idea that I think that the Europeans, the G7, this week said, you know what, we are ready to act swiftly.
I don't know if they'll follow through. It could be empty, Chris. But they are saying -- this is the Germans, the French, you know, the English -- are saying, we will cooperate with the United States.
Lavrov continues to talk with Secretary Kerry and the idea that Russia becomes a world pariah, isolated and contained by U.S. policy is not farfetched. That is what's right now on the table, despite the intense criticism.
WALLACE: George, final thoughts?
WILL: Well, notice the dog that no longer barks. No one is talking about Crimea. We're talking about eastern Ukraine, western Ukraine, Crimea is a fait accompli. Putin has won there.
The army -- if we can dignify it as such in Ukraine -- is being funded by bake sales and by an app on smartphones where Ukrainians can contribute 50 cents to support the army.
That tells you that Putin will do whatever he wants.
WALLACE: I'm sorry. There is never a final thought here. ROVE: One minor correction. The monitors who were -- who have now been apprehended by the -- these are Russian special forces-led militias in the eastern part. These are not -- these are part of a regular diplomatic thing called the Vienna Documents. Once a year or several times a year they --
WALLACE: Russia is a signatory.
ROVE: Signatory, yes. This is not even monitors for this particular -- this is an ongoing responsibilities of the international community. And as you say, the Russians are partners to this.
WILLIAMS: And violated it.
WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here. We'll see you a little later to talk some politics. Don't leave yet.
Up next, Indiana Governor Mike Pence making big changes in the Hoosier State and possibly setting himself up for a presidential run in 2016. Mike Pence joins us next.
WALLACE: In a GOP presidential contest that's as wide open as any in recent memory, our next guest is one of the names being mentioned as a potential candidate. And several recent appearances have created conservative buzz around Indiana Governor Mike Pence as a dark horse outside the beltway choice for president. Mike Pence joins us now. Governor, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."
PENCE: Thank you, Chris.
WALLACE: You spoke at the NRA's annual leadership conference, forum which is being held in Indianapolis this weekend. You also recently signed a law that would allow guns in locked vehicles in school parking lots. The Indianapolis school superintendent had this to say about that law, "Young people, schools, guns, and all of that is a mix for something inappropriate." Question, governor, do we really need guns closer to schools?
PENCE: Well, let me say, Chris, I have strongly supported the right to keep and bear arms. I truly believe that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizen's makes our families and our communities more safe, not less safe. And the bill that we just signed here in Indiana really was a common sense reform. We actually have parents that had a permit to conceal and carry a weapon that we're finding themselves guilty of a felony just by dropping their kids off to school. So we just -- we made a modest change, a common sense change in Indiana law. And I strongly supported it.
WALLACE: Let me talk about another law that it was recently passed in Georgia, which is being called the guns everywhere law. That would allow guns in bars, in churches, and even in the non-secure parts of the airports. Question, is that a good idea?
PENCE: You know, I haven't looked at that legislation and so I would hesitate to comment on it. But I want to say again, you know, we welcome the National Rifle Association here to Indianapolis. It's tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans. I was grateful to be able to speak to them and interact with them and I really do believe that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms makes our communities more safe, not less safe. And that's being celebrated here in Indianapolis today. And for however long I serve in public life, Chris, I'll stand on that basic liberty of the right to keep and bear arms.
WALLACE: But you and I talked often on this show during your twelve years as a member of Congress, but in 2012 you were elected governor of Indiana. And I want to take a look at some of the highlights of your record in this last two plus or almost two years. So far, you have cut taxes dramatically. You presided over Indiana as the first state to fall out of the common core national education standards. You pushed a big increase in private school vouchers and you signed a law to spend as much as $400 million on new highway projects. Question, is there a common theme there, governor? Is there a governing philosophy in everything you've been trying to do?
PENCE: Well, I really think there is. It's why we say Indiana is a state that works, Chris. I mean we're demonstrating that you can balance budgets, have strong reserves and nearly $2 billion in the bank. You can still invest in infrastructure and roads and bridges. You can invest in education, innovation and expanded educational opportunity. And the results speak for themselves. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the Midwest. We have one of the fastest growing labor forces in the country and our state is prospering even during these uncertain times because for some time here in Indiana, we've been just putting common sense principles into practice, living within our means, letting people keep more of what they earn, promoting economic freedom like the right to work. And that's why you're seeing increased investment in Indiana, more jobs in Indiana, and I'm awful proud of the progress that people of Indiana have made.
WALLACE: Instead of expanding Medicaid as was allowed under ObamaCare, you got a waiver from the federal government to continue the healthy Indiana plan, which requires participants, these people who didn't qualify for Medicaid in the past, but would now. So they're over the poverty line to pay into the system before they start getting benefits. What is the idea behind that, sir?
PENCE: Well, this is an idea we developed about five years ago in Indiana. It's along the principles of consumer driven health care. You know, when people take greater ownership of their own healthcare and are encouraged to do that in a health plan, their health gets better. They pursue more wellness opportunities. We get them from emergency room care to primary care and also it bends the cost curve over the long term. And as we move forward, I was pleased to be able to renew that program a year ago with a waiver. And we're currently working with the administration to see if we might be able to build on the principles of health savings accounts and consumer driven health care here in the state of Indiana. We really think health savings accounts were kind of invented in Indiana. 95 percent of my state employees have health saving accounts. We have the Healthy Indiana plan. We think it's an idea whose time has come and we think consumer driven health care rather than government driven health care or government mandated health care is the real future of health care in America.
WALLACE: But you have not confined yourself to issues concerning Indiana. During a recent trade mission to Germany, recently you criticized the way President Obama has been handling Ukraine. And you offered this suggestion. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PENCE: But to continued instability in the Middle East and with Putin's aggression in Ukraine, I believe we must take immediate steps to strengthen our mutual security by deploying a robust missile defense in all of Europe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Why is the governor of Indiana talking about missile defense and not to get too deeply into it, but how do you think setting up a missile defense in the Czech Republic or Poland is going to stop Putin who is not involved with missiles, but is talking about sending tanks and airplanes over the border or at least threatening to send those over the border into eastern Ukraine? How does missile defense help?
PENCE: Well, first, I was in Germany promoting the state of Indiana. We have more than 12,000 Hoosiers that are employed by German companies. And more to come. And Hoosiers have had a long standing interest in issues affecting the nation at home and abroad. And I'm no different than that. But when I was there, I thought it was important to speak about what I believe would be the right response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. I'm pleased to hear there is more sanctions maybe coming tomorrow. But the truth of the matter is I think we need less talk and more deeds. And by passing and moving rapidly to pass the Transatlantic Trade partnership and frankly by deploying a robust missile shield throughout Europe including in Poland and the Czech Republic that was off lined in 2009 by this administration, I think would send a very strong message to Putin and to Russia that NATO countries and the United States are going to respond by growing stronger economically and strategically. And I believe that -- I believe that's going to have a lot more influence in the long haul than more sanctions and more talk. However meritorious those are, at the end of the day, I think I've always believed in Ronald Reagan's adage, "Peace through Strength." Let's grow stronger on a transatlantic basis in our economies. Let's allow Poland and the Czech Republic to have that missile shield that they were entitled to by joining NATO. I think that's the right strategic response to Russian aggression.
WALLACE: All of which brings us to the possibility of your running for president, sir. I just happened to notice that next month in May you're going to be speaking before the Wisconsin State GOP convention and in June you're going to be speaking before the Alabama state GOP convention. Forgive me for being a little bit cynical here, but it seems like you're leaving the door wide open to running for president. PENCE: Well, Chris, honestly, my focus is entirely on the future of the people of Indiana. We'll let my future take care of itself.
PENCE: To elected Republican governors.
WALLACE: So why are you speaking to the state conventions in Wisconsin and Alabama?
PENCE: Well, look, despite the fact that some in Washington, D.C., for decades have thought of state government as territorial outposts of the national government, what we've seen in recent years is the rise of leaders at the state level that have been demonstrating from here in Indiana to Wisconsin to all over the country the character and the caliber of leadership that is producing real results. And the time that I can spare away from focusing here in Indiana, I'm focused on electing and re-electing Republican governors. I'm going to be excited to campaign with Scott Walker in the days ahead, with Governor Bentley in Alabama in the days ahead. Because I really do believe that the cure for what ails this country is going to come more from our nation's state capitals than it ever will from our nation's capital.
WALLACE: But, you know, I don't want to beat a dead horse. But I guess I'll hit it one more time. Back in 2012 you were thinking about running for president. You decided not to. I mean does that -- does the idea that perhaps you could help save the nation, solve the nation's problems, does that still beat inside you?
PENCE: Well, let me be honest with you, I'm always humbled and flattered any time I'm mentioned for the highest office in the land. But I honestly think much of that talk is the result of the progress the people of Indiana have been making. I mean the fact is we have the lowest unemployment rate in the Midwest, we demonstrated the ability to balance our budget, cut taxes even while we invest in expanded educational opportunities and infrastructure. So ...
PENCE: I'll take the compliment to heart, but I will defer it to the progress the people of Indiana have made and we'll stay focused here at home.
WALLACE: Governor, thank you. Thanks for joining us. We'll be following what you eventually decide about 2016. And I guess I'll leave this as to be continued, sir.
PENCE: Thank you, Chris.
WALLACE: When we come back, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush continue to fan speculation we may be headed for another Bush-Clinton matchup. Our panel comes back to read the Tea Leaves. Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the presidential race? Just go to Facebook or Twitter at FoxNewsSunday and we may use your questions on the air. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: It would certainly be the attack on our facility in Benghazi and the loss of two State Department personnel and two CIA contractors from the terrorist attack and the terrible consequences of that. It's very, very painful and it was certainly the biggest regret that I had as secretary of state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Hillary Clinton this week making a rare reference to the Benghazi terror attack. And we're back now with the panel. So Secretary Clinton began in a gentle way dealing with Benghazi this weekend which obviously would be an issue in a presidential campaign. We've learned that the name of her memoir that is coming out in June is "Hard Choices." And Caroline Kennedy, the ambassador to Japan who famously endorsed and supported Barack Obama in 2008 now said she would absolutely support Hillary Clinton in 2016 which brings me, George, to the question, is she running?
GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I sort of think so. But I don't think it's going to be a coronation. When was the last time a political party had essentially a coronation -- an open nomination that was essentially uncontested? 1956, I think with Andy Stevens. And that didn't turn out so well. He lost for a second time. She's been asked what is it about your tenure as secretary of state and what you get is sort of gasps. It's reminiscent of when Roger Mudd of CBS asked Ted Kennedy, a not unexpected question in 1980, why are you running for president? And by the time Ted Kennedy quit stammering, he was handicapped. She looks to me as not formidable.
WALLACE: Then, there is Jeb Bush who was asked this week what his immediate plans are and he said this. Put it up on the screen. "I'm thinking about running for president." While there were no cameras there, there were cameras a couple of weeks ago when Bush talked about his approach to illegal immigration. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEB BUSH (R) FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Yes, they broke the law. But it's not a felony. It's kind of -- it's an act of love. It's an act of commitment to your family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Karl, as someone who has spent a fair amount of time around the Bush family, is Jeb running? And how do you think his kinder, gentler approach to immigration reform is going to sit with the Republican base?
KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Yeah, well, first of all, I don't know. And he's thinking about it. But I know one thing about it. He's a very disciplined person. So he's going to think about it and make a decision next year. And nothing between now and then is going to force him to make a decision. Of all of the Bush's, I suspect he is the most stubborn except for one, and we know who she is.
WALLACE: If you had to bet.
ROVE: If I were betting, I don't know.
WALLACE: No, no, no. Come on.
ROVE: Look, I know the rules of the International Association of Pundits and Hosts ...
ROVE: Requires to have definitive opinions. If I were betting, I'd say, yes. But here's the thing. I also know he's a very deliberate thoughtful guy. He's the biggest thinker on our side. I'm glad he is thinking about doing it. But he's going to make up his own mind based on a very complicated set of personal calculations sometime next year.
WALLACE: And is active love going to sit well with the ...
ROVE: Well, look, this is a reminder of what he's going to face. The last time, you know, when you're in politics, you sort of get in the habit and you get in training and you bring your best game. Last time he was on the ballot was 20002. And what he said immediately before the film clip that you so artfully edited out was something that any -- everybody would have agreed. He said, look, let's keep it in perspective why people come here illegally. They come here in order to get a job and provide for their families. And then it went where it went. And it was in an article. But up to that point he'd said something, that even if you oppose comprehensive immigration reform, even opponents haven't had -- gradually begun to admit that is the rational, and it's a rational that we've have got to deal with.
WALLACE: Speaking of integration, Speaker John Boehner this week, and I love this piece of tape, which is mainly the reason that we are going to be asking questions about it, openly mocked House Republicans for blocking his efforts at immigration reform. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: Here is the attitude. Oh! Don't make me do this! Oh! This is too hard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: I think it lived up to its billing.
WALLACE: One of Bush's abiders (ph) rather, close advisers said either he is absolutely determined to push immigration reform this year or he's getting ready to move to his condo in Florida and retire.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there's more and more talk about that retirement issue that maybe he's gone a step too far in mocking his own caucus, and particularly the Tea Party element. And specifically putting pressure on the chair of the House Judicial Committee Bob Goodlatte of Virginia who's refused to move this thing forward despite pressure coming from Boehner. I think Boehner feels there is a window of opportunity in June -- July before the August recess where he can get something done. And he wants as speaker to have some accomplishments for the Republican caucus in general. In addition to those comments about immigration, he said he, you know, 80 percent of the Tea Party, ordinary good Americans with 20 percent a bunch of hucksters trying to make money off of everybody out there and he has gone after Heritage, he has gone after people that he thinks don't understand that politics is about winning. And he wants to win. So for the moment, you know, from my perspective, he's not the only one mocking these people who are obstructionists and intransigents on the Republican side. And I take my hat off to John Boehner. I think he's calling his party out in a way that is responsible.
WALLACE: I'm sure he's going to be very ...
WALLACE: Your endorsement.
WALLACE: You know, he's a very nice guy to me. But I'm sure he didn't appreciate me.
WALLACE: We asked you for questions for the panel. And we got this on Facebook from James Ryan who asked about a possible Bush- Clinton matchup. How can we prevent politics from becoming the family business? Amy, a couple of questions. First of all, how do you write -- if he does decide to run as Karl Rove just guaranteed he does?
AMY WALTER, THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Yes. I'm so glad he did that, too.
WALLACE: Yes. If he does decide to run, how do you rate his chances of actually winning the Republican nomination and how do you answer James and a lot of others who we've got emails that basically said return to the idea of the dynasties again.
WALTER: I think the point about Jeb is the one that Karl raised, which is not being on the ballot in ten years is a big issue. Think how much has changed just in campaigning over the last ten years. I don't think I had -- maybe I had a BlackBerry ten years ago, I don't know that I did, but think all that has gone into just the mechanics of campaigning, the 24/7, minute by minute campaigning that he has not been a part of. I think that is going to be a bigger problem for him than some of the positions. On immigration, for example, look, I think by the time we get to 2016 and these folks are sitting on the dais and are having a debate on these issues, every single one of them will have to take a position that is more moderate than you're hearing from the more conservative elements of the party. Everybody in the party -- 70 percent of the folks who are going to be on that stage know that they've got to get right on this issue.
WALLACE: And on 30 seconds, what about this thing of dynasties?
WALTER: It costs a lot of money to run for president. It's very difficult to get your name out there. And not many people want to do this anymore. Why would you want to run for president when you know what you're up against? In fact, that may be the reason that we don't see a Bush and Clinton because they know all too well what they're going to have to go through.
WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next week.
Up next, a historic day at the Vatican as two giants of the church are declared saints.
WALLACE: Some call that the day of four popes. Pope Francis and his predecessor, Benedict XVI, at the ceremony this morning where two giants of the church, John Paul II and John XXIII were declared saints. The crowd stretched far beyond St. Peter's Square and Fox senior foreign affairs correspondent Amy Kellogg reports from Rome.
AMY KELLOGG, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, the streets of Rome are alive with nearly a million pilgrims full of hope and joy and reverence as two new saints are ushered in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLOGG: In an unprecedented move, Pope Francis decided to canonize two popes in one ceremony today. Even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI hardly seen in public since a historic decision to retire from the pontificate can celebrate at the mass. John XXIII was known as a liberalizer for convening the second Vatican Council which modernized the church by changing the language of mass from Latin to the vernacular and encouraging interface dialogue. John Paul II was known for asserting the conservative values of Catholicism. Many believe Pope Francis decided to sanctify the two men simultaneously to symbolize unity in the church. But others say there was great continuity between the two saints. John XXIII made the church more accessible and John Paul II actually brought the church to the people with his tireless globetrotting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just glad to be here and to be part of the canonization to see that he becomes the saint.
FATHER THOMAS ROSICA, HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE: We're not doing this from distant figures of the early church. I kind of knew these people. And one of them I touched and I helped carry him in the final years of his life.
KELLOGG: Most saints will have had two miracle attributed to them like the mysterious disappearance of Parkinson's disease in this French nun who prayed to John Paul II. Exceptions are made, John XXIII is associated with just one miracle and John Paul II sainthood was fast tracked, you could say, by popular demand. John Paul II born Karol Wojtyla was the first non-Italian pope in centuries, a Polish pope whose election was a gift to his people as they struggled to keep their faith alive under the godless communist system.
GREG BURKE, VATICAN SENIOR MEDIA ADVISOR: He was a man of a lot of prayer, not a whole lot of chitchat. He had a smile. But there was a lot of prayer in that. I would probably add evangelize as well.
KELLOGG: There are those who feel john Paul II did not do enough to address the child sex abuse cases that started to come to light in large numbers during his pontificate.
MARCO POLITI, VETERAN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT: The sex abuse affair is a dark page of his papacy. In my opinion during the last year of his papacy, John Paul II wasn't informed enough about a lot of details.
KELLOGG: John XXIII was from a simple peasant family in northern Italy, he was known for being personable and generous. Before becoming pope he was credited with saving thousands of Jews during World War II by issuing travel documents that got them to safety.
KELLOGG: And even before Vatican, too, he was truly ahead of his time making pastoral visits outside the walls of the Vatican to prisons and hospitals, a man after the current Pope Francis' heart. Chris?
WALLACE: Amy Kellogg reporting from Rome. Amy, thanks for that report and a very special day. And that's it for a packed show. Have a great week and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.