Face The Nation: Adams, Pritzker, Scott

Last week, eight House Republicans joined by a unified Democratic caucus voted to eject Congressman Kevin McCarthy from the position of Speaker of the House, a historic first. One of those Republicans, Representative Nancy Mace, joins us this morning from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Good to have you back with us. Let's go straight to the news. You had said to the Wall Street Journal the reason you voted down McCarthy was because promises you were made were not kept. You've been working very hard on very specific issues for a very long time. When you shake a hand, make a promise, you ought to keep it. What specific promise did he fail to follow through on? Well, first of all, he made a promise to our country that he would follow the law in presenting budget and 12 spending bills. There's a law from 1974, the Budget Impact and Control Act, that says we were supposed to do that. But Congress always manufactures an emergency every year like they don't know that September 30th exists. They skirt the law with CRs. Number one, I want a speaker who will keep their word and who will get the job done. Secondarily, I was very public about working on many different issues, whether it was trying to get a balanced budget amendment on the floor, working through the Ethics Committee to come up with a process when we are trying to get people off of committee that they're allowed due process, that it's vetted via the Ethics Committee. I've been working on women's issues. I've been working on gun violence issues in our communities. And I had his pledge of support on many of those things. But this is bigger than just me and him. This is about the future of our country and mortgaging our kids' future, and I'm unwilling to do that. OK. Well, the balanced budget amendment was introduced by you September 18th, very recently. Your rape kit backlog bill, an important one, moved through Judiciary Committee fairly swiftly at the end of September. And they already were in process of voting through those appropriations bills, as you know. And in fact, voting could happen now, except there's no speaker, so we're stuck. What was it that flipped the switch? Well, again, for me, it's someone that will keep their promises, that will keep their word, and not kicking the can down the road. And it was a matter of trust, not just for me, but there were other members in our conference. There were members on both sides of the aisle. And it's very important that when we make a promise to the American people, we really ought to keep it. I've been back home in South Carolina the last couple of days, since we recessed and adjourned, and I heard from a lot of people. And it was a lot of, thank you for your vote on Tuesday, thank you for your position on abortion. We support you. We've got to stand up for the people of our country. I'm going to stand up against the folks in Washington that want to do the same thing we've always done. But again, when we make promises to our country, we ought to keep them. And I'm excited about the prospects of the speakers next week. That's what I want to ask you about. So what fulfillment of those promises is required for you? I mean, is that what you're asking of Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise, the two candidates? I have spoken with both of those gentlemen. I think they would both be great leaders. And my bar for the next speaker is to commit to the promises that the former speaker made to our country and to get the job done and to be productive. We have a lot of work that we have to do. We have a very short window of time to do it. And let's fulfill the promises that we kept, that we made to the American people. How quickly can this get done? Is there any unity? I think it can get done very quickly. I think there can be in the next couple of days. I believe we need to be swift with it. I have spoken to both of them. They are committed to bringing our party together and unifying and not continuing the division that we have. And that's what we need to do. I think it's a great opportunity. It could be cathartic for the party. It could be very positive next week. I have to take a break and continue this conversation on the other side of it with you. Stay with us. Welcome back to Face the Nation. Let's continue our conversation now with South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace. We were talking about the two candidates for speaker who have put themselves forward. You voted to certify the 2020 election. Steve Scalise did not. By CBS standards, that makes him an election denier. Is that disqualifying for you? Well, with both of the candidates, there are going to be issues that we agree on and disagree on. I don't know what that would be with any speaker. But I will tell you today, I'm going to be supporting Jim Jordan for speaker for a number of reasons. I think that his values, his work ethic, his ability to just run circles around everyone with regards to policy and pushing forward. We've been one of the least productive Congresses in inside of 30 years, and he's going to be a workhorse for our country. And I'm really looking forward to rolling up our sleeves this week, no matter how this shakes out, and working hard for the American people, because we've got to stand up for the people. We've got to put the American people first and move this country forward and do it in a positive way. And I think he's going to bring that to the table. Well, let me ask you about Jim Jordan, because former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who, as you know, was one of the lead investigators on the January 6th committee, warned Republicans against making him speaker of the House. Listen. Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for January 6th than any other member of the House of Representatives. And if the Republicans decide that Jim Jordan should be the speaker of the House, there would no longer be any possible way to argue that a group of elected Republicans could be counted on to defend the Constitution. That is a chilling statement. Does it give you any pause? Well, again, there are going to be all sorts of issues that we agree on and disagree on. And also, in terms of January 6th, the Electoral College, et cetera, I was one of the most vocal members of our party that day and the days and weeks beyond that. I got primaried because of my vote to certify, because I spoke out. And so, you know, we have to look forward and unite and come together, regardless of what has happened in the past. We have to be forward-thinking and look to the future to bring the party together, bring the people together, and let the American people know that we care and we're going to work and fight hard for them. I know you've been outspoken about defending victims of sexual assault due to the past allegations against Jim Jordan that he turned a blind eye to sexual abuse. Give you any reservations? Yeah, I'm not familiar or aware with that. He's not indicted on anything that I'm aware of. And so, I don't know anything and can't speak to that. But I will say that I have been, as you said, Margaret, a very, yeah, I don't know anything and I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that I've been a very strong voice for women. I've talked to Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise about that. I've been a very strong advocate for rape victims. As you mentioned earlier, the Judiciary Committee, with him as chairman, recently passed a rape kit bill that Barbara Lee and I are working on. And those are the facts and the data that I have to work with, and I've had a very positive experience with him in that regard. You mentioned among the things you wanted promises on from McCarthy, the Ethics Committee was something you said was also a priority for you. Matt Gaetz, on this program, you've called him a fraud. McCarthy said his ouster is personal payback from Gaetz for the House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct that Gaetz is accused of carrying out. Does that bother you? Well, again, he's not indicted for anything. I don't really, I don't know much about it. And I have had my ups and downs, and I'm not on the Ethics Committee, and I don't know what they have. I haven't seen it. But I've had my ups and downs with a lot of members in Congress, because as an independent voice, I will call the balls and strikes, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the backlash. I think that's very apparent after the last five days or so. But again, nothing's come out of the Ethics Committee. I also heard in the last couple of days, in terms of the retribution against Matt Gaetz, they're going to pull something out of Ethics Committee to get him back. I'm being threatened to be thrown off of my committees. I'm being threatened to be thrown out of the conference. They're threatening to take my gavel away on oversight. There's just a lot of, by fellow members, I mean, there was a letter signed on Friday. I want to use this as an opportunity to say, I'm willing to work with anyone who's willing to work with me. We want to move our country forward and unite during the speaker debate and the vote this week. Nancy Mace, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back. Mayor Eric Adams is back in New York City this morning after a trip through Mexico and Central America, where he delivered a message. His city cannot handle more migrants, and he needs more help from the federal government. Mayor Adams joins us from New York. Good morning to you, sir. Good morning. And if I can, at the start of the broadcast, I just want to—I landed this morning, and I am pained over the horrific attacks in Israel. My heart goes out to the Israeli people. We have the largest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv here in this city, and it's really horrifying to look at some of the images. And again, I'm lifting them up in my prayers this morning, as well as other New Yorkers. I saw your governor condemned a protest that's supposed to be held in Times Square that's described as in support of the perpetrators of the attack. Is that going to take place? And security-wise, are you concerned? I was briefed this morning with the elected officials, and I communicated while I was abroad with my police leaders to make sure that we will monitor the protests here in the city. One has the right to protest, even if I strongly disagree with any form of celebrating such a horrific incident like this. But we are going to monitor to make sure that people do it in a peaceful way. They're going to be, I'm sure, pro-Israel, pro-organizers, as well, and we're going to make sure that people abide by the law. I want to ask you about this trip you just took throughout Central America. And you went to the Darien Gap, that transit point between North and South America. Why did you make this visit, and what did you learn? It was extremely important. This is my style of governing. People know I go to crime scenes when victims of police violence. I'm going to go when there's a horrific fire on the ground. We cannot stay in the sterilized environments of our executive chambers while there are real things happening on the ground. And ground zero is what's taking place in this region, in this hemisphere, what's happening in Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico. And I needed to see firsthand why are we seeing the flow and speak with the leaders there to see exactly what was taking place. And it was an eye-opener for me just to learn that over 21 percent of those who are going through the Darien Gap, they are children. This is a children crisis that we are facing, and I wanted to communicate with the local CBOs, local elected leaderships there, and the local citizens and residents to learn from them, but also to send a clear message on their medias. New York is out of room, and we need to communicate that. You've said this will destroy New York City. We had your governor on last Sunday, and she said the border's too open. She called for a change to asylum laws. Is that something you're calling for, too? Yes. I want to thank the governor, because we see what's happening to this city. When you look at the flow, think about this for a moment, 375,000 migrants and asylum seekers went through the Darien Gap this year. That's 100,000 more than last year, 200,000 more than 2021. Just this, the last week of September, we had over 3,700 asylum seekers that came to New York City. That's an increase. We were getting 600 a week, which was unsustainable, and now we're up to getting anywhere from almost 800 a week. These numbers are not sustainable, and it's not sustainable in Chicago, where people are living in police precincts, Los Angeles, Houston, Washington. This is just not right, what is taking place. You are asking the courts in New York to suspend the right to shelter rule, which requires emergency housing to be provided. What's your plan to prevent that from contributing to more homelessness? Well, our legal team is not asking for a suspension. We want clarification. This is a humanitarian crisis that we are facing. This is not what the architects of right to shelter thought about when you were dealing with those New Yorkers who needed shelter. We can't have a rule that one can come from anywhere on the globe and come to New York City and remain in New York City as long as they want and taxpayers must pick up the cost. This is a $5 billion price tag. This fiscal year, $12 billion over three years, that money is coming from somewhere. It's unfair to the migrant seekers and asylum seekers, and it's also unfair to everyday taxpayers New Yorkers, and so we want clarification coming from the courts. You had called on the Biden administration to grant temporary protection, which they did to some Venezuelans so they could work, so they could get out of the shelters, and there are a large number of Venezuelan migrants, I know, in the city. The governor of Illinois, who's about to join us, says that many of these people can't even afford to apply, and they need the federal government to waive fees. Has the Biden administration understood the problem that it says it's trying to solve? What do they need to do? You know, one of the most troubling aspects of this conversation, as people regulated this to just a Mayor Adams and the President's conversation, we need to really wake up. This is a global crisis of movements of human beings for several different reasons based on which country you're looking at, and we need to reexamine not only our long-term immigration policies, but how do we allow people on a pathway of being self-sustaining. The only reason we are who we are as a country is because people have the right to work. I keep saying that's the precursor to sleep that allows you to experience the American dream, not being able to be self-sustaining, paying to the tax base of all groups, not only just the Venezuelan. The rule and policy that was put in place would impact, we believe, 15,000 to 17,000 in that area. But we have people coming from West Africa, South America, Central America, China, all over the globe is coming to this hemisphere, and we need to be prepared with the right policies to get this done correctly. And we're going to continue this conversation, Mr. Mayor, with our next guest. So thank you for giving us your view. The Democratic governor of Illinois, J.P. Pritzker, has many of the same concerns, and he's joining us this morning from Chicago. Governor, thank you for joining us. Of course, we should say, in order to do many of the things you and the mayor are asking for, we need a Congress to legislate, and to legislate, you need a Speaker of the House, and we are stuck. So at the moment, though, I want to understand what it is that you were asking President Biden to do, because you had a pretty sharply worded letter this past week talking about the federal government's lack of intervention and coordination, creating an untenable situation in Illinois. Should the White House respond if they fixed your problem? Well, thanks, and good morning, Margaret. Let me also begin by sending our condolences, and our hearts are with the people of Israel at this moment, the families of those who died, and also the people who've been kidnapped and taken hostage by these terrorists. So the United States stands with Israel, and so does the state of Illinois, and so do I personally. Let me answer your question by saying that, you know, we were very clear in our communication with the White House that what we need is logistical support, that is, help deciding where these folks ought to go, because they can't all go to Chicago and New York and D.C. They need to go in places where there's even more help to offer. We, of course, are a welcoming state, and have been caring for the people who've arrived, but we can't bear the burden only ourselves. Who can? Well, let me also say that the White House has been told, you know, we need resources, and you talk about the Congress being in chaos. The House of Representatives is opposed to any kind of comprehensive immigration reform. It seems like now is the moment to talk about border security and immigration reform. We want immigrants in the United States. We also want border security. It seems like there's a compromise there that can occur. But look, there are lots of places in the country where there are NGOs that can be of assistance to these folks who've arrived. They're here legally. They have refuge in the United States for the moment. My family were refugees to this country, too. We ought to welcome them, put them through a process, and if they don't meet the requirements, they should be sent back. And that's what the president is beginning to do now. Beginning to do with that announcement that Venezuela will now accept some deportations. But on that point, you were pretty prescriptive in your letter. You said you need a single office with an identified leader. You told the president to take a more active role. You recommend he put one person in charge who works directly for him. This sounds like a management 101. How did that go over? Well, they heard me. You know, there are so many departments that are responsible for helping to care for these asylum seekers, as well as managing them as they cross the border. I hope that they will put one office together. I know the White House right now is coordinating it, but they need one office and, in my opinion, one person at the head of that office that we can call, that we can work with to coordinate. Because look, we're providing shelter as best we can and providing for the needs of these folks arriving in Chicago. And as I say, we're a welcoming state and we understand the humanitarian crisis that we're addressing, but we can't address this all by ourselves. And we need help from the White House. One example of this is this communication that I think needs to occur with data so that we can understand who's arriving and when they're arriving and whether they have relatives already in the United States who might be able to help care for them. None of that is being done at the border. That's where it ought to be done. And then folks shouldn't, should be told that it's going to get cold in Chicago and New York very soon. And there are lots of other places in the country that they might want to consider going, and the White House and the federal government should be facilitating that. I appreciate your focus on the human element here. I want to ask you about the political. The Democratic Convention's in Chicago next year. Are you confident that your city and your state are going to have a better grasp on it by this time? I am confident that we can handle it. But again, it will require help from the federal government and someone needs to work in Texas with these border politicians to have them stop sending people only to blue cities and blue states. And the president of the United States and the White House has the ability to help disperse folks across the country. That will help a lot. But we are managing in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois as best we can in these circumstances. But not if just those few politicians in Texas are taking responsibility for this. It needs to be a federal national problem that gets handled at the national level. Governor Pritzker, thank you for your time this morning. We'll be back in a moment. Thanks, Margaret. On Friday, we spoke with Republican Senator and presidential candidate Tim Scott from his home state of South Carolina. Our conversation began on the economy and the surprisingly robust September jobs report. Today's jobs number shattered expectations. It showed some economic momentum. In fact, restaurant hospitality hiring back to pre-pandemic levels. That seems to undercut your argument that the economy is broken. Well, all you have to do is talk to the average American family and ask them what they feel how they feel about by economics. The answer is very simple. We've lost over $5,000 of spending power since January 2021. We should always celebrate the creation of jobs. We should never forget that we went 52 consecutive paychecks, 52 consecutive paychecks with a loss of spending power. And you blame political leadership, not the Federal Reserve? Well, if you think about the fact that over the last, I guess, year and a half, we've seen a 16 percent inflation since Joe Biden's taken office, which led to 11 consecutive rate increases. That downward pressure on our economy certainly created cracks and fissures throughout the economy. And that was caused by Joe Biden's lack of leadership and understanding of how to create jobs in America. I want to bring up something specific about your economic plan, because the Wall Street General Editorial Board, which is conservative leaning, it did praise many parts of it. But they zeroed in on your promise to offer the child tax credit to pregnant women, criticizing it saying that is social policy masquerading as economics. Why are they and other Republicans wrong? Well, here's a question. Do we want to find a way to encourage life in this country? I think the answer is yes. Creating a culture that benefits a single mother like the one that raised me when she gets pregnant, why not extend the child tax credit to when the mother understands that she's pregnant? Let's give her that benefit. Every single thing that we do that encourages family and encourages mothers to continue forward, I think that's a good thing. As a matter of fact, if you look at the tax code of our country, the one thing since the 1930s that we've seen in our tax code is having the tax code create the kind of America that we want. I'll never back down from helping single mothers like the one that raised me and mothers overall be in a better position to take care of their families. I don't care who disagrees with that. How confident are you Congress is going to avoid a shutdown next month? Well, you haven't told November the 17th to figure that out, Margaret. I will say without any question, the road to socialism runs right through a divided Republican Party. When you have 221 members of the party in the House, you need 218 to choose a speaker. One of the things they should do is go behind closed doors. Let's figure this out in advance. Do you have a speaker of the House in mind? I don't. One of the things I've noticed about those of us outside the House, the last thing we need are more voices in the House. You understand this as well as anybody else. There are multiple factions in the House. The last thing we need are more voices on the outside weighing in on the House of Representatives. It sounds like you disagree with Donald Trump on his decision to wade into that. You know one of the sticking points on aid... I do. One of the sticking points is aid to Ukraine, which I know you have said is vital to U.S. interests. How do you persuade reluctant Republicans to sign on? Well, Margaret, one of the things that we saw in the last aid package that was absolutely missing was only $4 billion to finish the construction of the wall, $5 billion to use the available military-grade technology to surveil our border to stop 70,000 Americans from losing their lives in the next 12 months, because we saw that in the last 12 months. So if you were to be able to, so to speak, walk and chew gum at the same time, if you solved our national security issue on our southern border in addition to aid to Ukraine, you'd have the kind of package that most Americans and, frankly, most members of both houses would sign off on. So this week, the Venezuelan government announced that they have agreed to accept back into their country some of the migrants who crossed unlawfully into the United States. That hadn't been happening for some time. Do you support that Biden administration diplomatic initiative? Well, there's no doubt when the Biden administration decided to give work permits to those Venezuelans, you would only expect for an acceleration of more Venezuelans coming to our country, frankly, illegally. And so to see the Biden administration find common sense is a good thing. I wish they just would have found it in January of 2021. Tim Scott, Senator, thank you for your time today. Yes, ma'am. We'll be right back. That's it for us today. Thank you for watching. Until next week, for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brannan.