i'm jane pauley. please join us when our trumpet sounds again next "sunday morning." ♪ . i'm margaret brennan in washington. and this week on "face the nation" -- we traveled to the u.s.-mexico border for a firsthand look at what growing number of americans are calling a crisis. an in-depth conversation with the new speaker of the house, mike johnson. it's all just ahead on "face the nation."

♪ good morning. welcome to "face the nation." yesterday, marked the third anniversary of the january 6th attack on the capitol and our cbs news polling shows that many americans in each party are uneasy about the prospects of a peaceful transfer of power in future elections. with half the country expecting there will be violence from the side that loses. our polling also shows that three in four americans see the situation at the u.s.-mexico border as either a crisis or a very serious situation. that 45% is a notable increase. both of those issues, democracy and immigration, are dominating the campaign trail as we head into the last week before the first votes in the 2024 election

are taken in iowa. but first, we traveled to eagle pass, texas, last week, and caught up with house speaker mike johnson, who led a delegation of 64 republican members of congress to the texas-mexico border on a fact-finding tour. >> we have a humanitarian catastrophe and, of course, huge national security concerns. what we saw is in some ways difficult to describe. the magnitude of the chaos here, of the number of lives adversary affected. the minor children that are being trafficked into the country, and the fentanyl overdoses and poisoning that has been a scourge on the country. these are transnational dangerous criminal organizations, and the maddening thing about it is that the white house is allowing all this. these are policy choices that created this chaos. it is thus policy choices that could change it, and -- >> which policy choices do you think need to be changed? >> on his first day in office president biden came in and

issued executive orders that began this chaos. remain in mexico is one of them. the catch and release program has created part of this problem. you can end catch and release. >> you need the logistical and financial support to be able to do that. congress has the purse strings to give them the money to do that. i'll quote to you the deputy chief of the u.s. border patrol said it is as if we're trying to administer an open fire hydrant. i don't need more buckets. i need for the -- i need the flow to be turned off and the way you to that is with policy changes. we're just asking the white house to apply common sense, and they seem to be completely uninterested in doing so. >> so we toured the firefly facility, the tented facility you all went on the same tour, and what we were told is, there is a need for consequences, border patrol officials say. >> sure. >> they also need the money. they need the resources to be able to process. they didn't have enough men, they didn't have enough logistical support to even

deport people when they wanted to do that. >> right. >> can you look them in the eye, when you talk to them and say, i'm going to get you the money you need? that is part of the challenge? >> we did look them in the eye, many of these, from the top officials to the rank and file, and they all say the same thing. please stop the flow. >> are you saying you wouldn't authorize new funding to help out those agents with what they say they need unless it is matched with these bigger policy changes? >> right. i think anyone with common sense would tell you you cannot throw more money at a bad system. we don't want to empower more of this. the white house, the administration, secretary mayorkas, put a welcome mat out -- >> you couldn't even go through the deportations that you would like to see happen without the funding to actually have the process function? i mean, i.c.e. has a capacity to hold 40,000 beds. that's not nearly matching what you're describing. >> in a triage situation you have to stop the flow first

before you can commence with the surgery. >> yeah. >> we're hemorrhaging here. everyone knows it. >> these are very, very real and immediate issues. >> they are. >> it is a crisis. >> absolutely. >> don't you need the help of the homeland security secretary instead of trying to impeach him? >> we've been asking secretary mayorkas since he took office to enforce the law and do his job, and he's exactly the opposite. he's testified untruthfully before congress repeatedly. >> the congressional resources going ahead with impeachment when they could be dealing with the issues on the ground. >> i believe secretary mayorkas is an abject failure. i believe he has done this intentionally. these are intentional decisions he's made and i think there must be accountability for that. >> you're going to impeach the guy you need to negotiate with. >> secretary mayorkas is not a good faith negotiating partner. he's unwilling to enforce existing law. why would we believe he would do new provision.

he's lied to congress repeatedly, lied to me repeatedly. >> he stood in front of my committee and insisted the border is closed and secure when everyone in america knows it's not true. >> the senators negotiating with the white house have not shared the texts of what they're putting together with you, is that accurate? >> right. >> one of the main republican negotiators, lindsey graham, was with us on sunday, and he said, there were three things that would help get a deal to pass the house. asylum reform, limitations on parole and reinvoking expulsion authority. what do you need? >> you heard us say repeatedly insisting on the provisions of h.r.2, our legislation we passed seven months ago, provisions of h.r.2 include reforming that broken parole system, reforming the broken asylum process. >> it's got no future in the senate, even republican senators like james lankford and lindsey graham say they don't want it. biden will veto it. it's dead on arrival.

>> i don't know if you can speak for all the senators. a lot understand why those provisions are important. if you only reform one of those five, don't end catch and release, don't reinstitute remain in mexico, only fix asylum and not parole, you don't solve the problem or stem the flow here. again, that's the number one objective so we can get a handle on this crisis. >> do you believe more border funding is needed? the white house wants to hire more agents and do all sort of things and you are standing in the way? >> that's nonsense. absolute flown sense. they have to solve the crisis here and throw in more money at the broken system will not do that. >> you're not opposing funding? >> no. we understand that border patrol needs the necessary resources to do its job. but they can't do the job that they're hired to do unless you change the policy here. >> but you would potentially be open to what the senate is negotiating and put it on the floor in the house? >> it's a hypothetical question.

they have not sent me these provisions, but i have told them what we at least expect. >> you want a deal? >> we want to solve this crisis. we have to. we have a moral obligation to do so. >> at the end of this month will have majority of 219 republicans. 218 to govern. have you talked to the democratic leader about what it would take to get a bill through? have you talked to the white house? >> no. hakeem jeffries and are colleagues and friends and i have a good relationship with him. i am not deterred by this at all. i'm undaunted by this. we deal with the numbers we have. it will be one of the smallest majorities of the history of the congress. >> doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room? >> it doesn't, but we have a lot of unity on the big, important issues we're focused on, and i'm confident we'll get the job done and be able to demonstrate we can govern well and that's one of the reasons we'll expand this majority in the next election cycle. >> you have to keep the government open. january 19th.

>> we do. we've been negotiating in good faith through the holidays, every day, except for christmas, on the top line numbers and i think that we may be close to a deal, but we have insisted that federal spending must be addressed in a very serious and sober manner. we crossed an important threshold this week. $34 trillion in federal debt. there's never been anything of that magnitude in the history of the country, and it's not sustainable. the congress has a responsibility, we have the power of the purse and we have to be good stewards of precious taxpayer resources. we cannot continue to borrow money to spend, reducing nondefense discretionary spending must be a priority of congress. >> when president trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country, is that a statement you agree with? >> that's not language i would use, but i understand the urgency of president trump's admonition. he's been saying this since he ran for president the first time, we have to secure the

border. i think the vast majority of the american people understand the necessity of that, and i think they agree with his position. >> but that statement goes beyond what you are personally comfortable with? >> it's not language i would use, but i understand -- >> it sounds hateful? >> it's not hateful. what president trump is trying to advance is america first priority, and i think that makes sense to a lot of people. the current president, president biden, wants additional supplemental spending on national security, but he denies the most important point of our own national security and that is our own border. >> you can say that without talking about blood? >> it's -- president biden's position is frustrating to us, the american people and to president trump, and i think that's what he's -- that's what he's articulating there. >> the white house declined our invitation to have secretary mayorkas join us today but we will continue to ask for him. according to administration officials and sources familiar with the negotiations in the

senate, a deal to surge resources to the border and make significant policy changes is expected this week. details are being finalized. more of our interview with speaker johnson and former republican congresswoman liz cheney when we come back.

aid to ukraine is being held up in congress by republicans who want to tie it to a border security package including johnson who told us he believes russia's vladimir putin must be defeated. but that the u.s. must, quote, secure the u.s. border before we secure anyone else's. we asked the speaker if the two aid packages could be passed by february. speaker johnson says president zelenskyy personally told him that was the date by which he needs the u.s. funding. >> i think if the white house and senate are serious and listen to the american people, remembering this is an 80% issue with the american people, and they understand the necessity of what we're talking about, we have to insist upon securing our own country and also if we get

the necessary information and the necessary answers with regard to what is the end game in ukraine and how will we be responsible with the expenditure of those resources, the white house has not given us the necessary information. >> have you spoken with president biden recently or donald trump recently? >> yes. both. yes. i've spoken to trump recently and president biden well before the holidays. >> do you take counsel from the former president or are those conversations like -- >> very friendly. i mean, i've known the president well. i think -- i think he will be the nominee and going to win the election and be the next president of the united states. it's important to maintain that relationship. it will be an important one for the country. >> back in 2021 you were the lawmaker who circulated the legal briefing known as the texas amicus brief challenging the 2020 election outcome in a number of states which by cbs

editorial standards makes you an election denier. >> that's nonsense. >> can i get you on the record on that? shoe i've always been consistent on the brief. did you read the brief? did you read what we filed with the supreme court? >> i have read extensively criticisms of that. >> commentary but not what we submitted to the court. >> you recognize president biden won the 2020 election. >> he's been the president for three years. what i -- the argument that we presented to the court which is our only avenue to do so, was that the constitution was clearly violated in the 2020 election. it's article 2, section 1. anyone can google and read it for themselves. the system by which you choose electors to the president of the united states must be done by the individuals of the state and the system must be ratified. that is plain language out of the constitution. >> you have issues still with the validity of the 2020 election? >> the constitution was violated in the run up to the 2020

election. not always in bad faith, but in the aftermath of covid, many states changed their election laws ways that violated that plain language. that's a fact. we presented that argument and facts to the court, and it was never directly addressed because the texas litigation, but that was the only vehicle we had to present that issue squarely to the court. >> it was completely shut down, as an issue, but your colleague liz cheney, former colleague, wrote mike johnson and our republican leaders played a destructive role. you, she says, convinced 125 other republican members of congress to sign on to an amicus brief many never read, that made numerous false factual and constitutional claims. how do you respond to that? and the impression that you might have contributed in some way to january 6s? >> i don't spend much time responding to liz cheney these days. liz cheney worked with the

democrats on the january 6th select committee to make this more politicized than it was. she was a close friend and colleague before -- >> she said that in her book about you. >> yeah. you know -- >> she was surprised, she is. i'm surprised she's grivg giving that criticism. liz and i were in dialog and at one point she considered signing on to that bill. that was a fact. to that amicus brief. we had a difference of opinion on the law and people can agree to disagree on that, but i'm telling you that plain language of the constitution has never changed and what happened in many states by changing the election laws without ratification by the state legislatures is a violation of the constitution. that's a plain fact and no one can dispute. >> how do you make sense of the idea that you still have issues with the validity of the 2020 election, but one of to negotiate and talk with the president of the united states, joe biden? >> this is water under the bridge.

when the supreme court passed on the texas litigation and did not address the issue i believe in the rule of law. this is our system. i move forward i work with president biden as the president of the united states. i think he will be a one-term president but, you know, this discussion about what happened in 2020 is yesterday's news. >> well, i want to ask you, though, because a majority of house republicans voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry into joe biden recently. what do you think he should be impeached for? how do you negotiate with him in the process of that impeachment? >> the house has -- >> or potential impeachment? >> among the very heavy responsibilities that the house of representatives holds, next to the declaration of war, impeachment is probably the heaviest power we have. in the previous administration, we were very critical of the house democrats because they politicized impeachment. that is not the way that we should handle that heavy power of the house. we do have a responsibility,

however, to investigate things that are untoward and this has happened with the biden administration. very methodically, very carefully n a way that is opposite of what the house democrats did during the trump administration and now the investigation is being impeded. the white house has suddenly refused to turn over documents that have been requested and certain witnesses key to unwinding exactly what happened. it came to a certain point that house had to pass the impeachment inquiry as a measure because that puts us at the apex of our constitutional authority because we'll have to enforce these subpoenas in a court of law. that was a necessary step that we had to take. again, it's still not been prejudged. we've not made a determination that impeachment is going to happen here. >> you haven't made the conclusion that you've seen evidence that you'll move forward with this? >> you can't prejudge an impeachment inquiry or an investigation. i think that would be a violation of our duty under the constitution. you have to investigate and if all the truth -- follow the truth where it leads. there is a lot of smoke here and

congress has a responsibility to find the fire if it exists and that's what they're doing very carefully. >> our full interview with speaker johnson is available on our youtube channel. we turn to former republican congresswoman liz cheney, her book is "oath and honor, a memoir and a warning." good morning to you here. >> good morning. great to be with you. >> i want to give you chance to respond to the speaker, is it a fact, as he asserted, when you were in house leadership you considered signing on to that challenge to donald trump -- >> it is not. we were, as mike said, in constant contact throughout that period. i actually know precisely when he sent me the brief and precisely when less than 30 minutes later, i told him my concerns with the brief. mike knows that as well. the brief itself was legally and constitutionally infirm. i made that clear. mike's claims that somehow -- and this is dangerous -- that somehow as a member of congress he has the right to reject, ignore the rulings of the

courts, you know, we have dozens of state and federal courts that assessed the claims, assessed the constitutionality and rejected them, and mike's position wishes people really need to think about because it's so chilling, is that somehow as a member of congress, he has the right to ignore the rulings of those courts, to assert absent any finding of fact, that somehow he feels that something that happened was unconstitutional and, therefore, that he can throw out the votes of millions of americans. that's tyranny. it's not the rule of law. it's tyranny. it's important for people to understand that because this notion of rejecting, ignoring, refusing to abide by the rulings will see in a second trump term if donald trump is re-elected. >> you write about this in your book and say, it was actually donald trump's own lawyers who wrote that legal brief that speaker johnson circulated. >> correct. and the other thing is, johnson -- and i made this clear

to him too the very first time we spoke after i reviewed the brief -- that he was misrepresenting the brief to the members in the conference. i told him i thought signing on to this brief for anyone who was a member of a bar, raised significant and serious ethical issues because you were asserting to a court facts that not only were untrue but which had been rejected by other courts and for which you had no basis and knowledge. he knows the truth, but the american people, beyond the disagreement between johnson and i, need to recognize how dangerous it is to have elected officials who think they can ignore the rulings of the courts. >> for those folks who say, this sound soundsically complicated, members of the house republican leadership signed on, all of the members supported donald trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and currently are endorsing him to be the next president of the united states. >> right. >> from your perspective, sounds

like you're saying you don't trust republican leadership in the house and their conduct in the upcoming election? >> look. you've had two members of the republican membership in the house this morning, mike on again claiming he has the right individually to decide that he's going to throw out millions of votes and ignore the rulings of the courts, elise stefanik on talking about the january 6th hostages. you don't have to take my word you can't count on these elected republicans. every time they go out and give an interview they demonstrate it themselves. >> elise stefanik was on another network this morning. the quote i have concerns about the treatment of the january 6th hostages. hostages is a very specific word, and there are well over 1200 people in the u.s. legal system going through legal proceedings right now for their role in the attack that day. that word she used is exactly the word that donald trump uses. >> that's why she's using it.

it's outrageous. it's disgusting. if you go and you look at what individuals have been convicted for, who are incarcerated, you'll find, you know, extensively these are people who were involved in violence against police officers, in the assault on the capitol, and it is really -- it's disgraceful for donald trump to be saying what he's saying and then for those who are attempting to enable him or attempting to further their own political careers, to repeat it. it's a disgrace. you cannot say you are a member of a party that believes in the rule of law. you can't say that you're pro-law enforcement if you go out and say these people are, quote, hostages. it's disgraceful. >> we have other republican candidates like ron desantis who have said they are open to reviewing the cases against these defendants and considering pardons for them. >> look, you know, the president has pardon power and authority. i think that it's a very important piece that people ought to consider when they're

thinking about for whom they're going to vote. someone who says that they would pardon individuals who assaulted the capitol, attempted to stop a constitutional process, who assaulted police officers, it was a bloody battle. i had police officers tell me it was like medieval hand to hand combat. the notion that republican party would continue its efforts to whitewash that day when the peaceful transition of power is at the core of the survival of our republic tells you they're unfit for office. >> we have to take a break, but i want to come back with you on the other side of it. stay with us. we'll be right back. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

♪♪ ♪♪

our trip to eagle pass also included a first hand look at ha officials need to help handle those crossing into the u.s. and why some of those migrants want to come to the u.s. in the first place. that's coming up after liz cheney. of course the hot sun can be tough on vehicles too

you need weathertech all year round! come on, protect your investment laser measured floorliners and cargoliner will shield the carpeting from sand and snow for your interior, there's seat protector and sunshade plus, mudflaps and bumpstep for the exterior order american made products at weathertech.com surfs up yeah, right i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save.

we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us.

[captioning funded by cbs sports division] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]