timeline of the president's actions, the betrayal speaks for itself. congress has a responsibility to legislate. the need to litigate. constitutional obligation to investigate. all three, and we will do it well. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and the house will take up that resolution, opposing the withdrawal from syria. live coverage when they're back at noon eastern. you the news ow conference with republican leadership that wrapped up just a few minutes ago. ms. rodgers -- good morning,

everybody. back.e -- mrs. rodgers: good morning, everybody. welcome back. interesting ad an and useful break. i know all of -- ms. cheney: i my folks liked talking facing our sues constituents and the real frustration, i think, we all eard in terms of what's not getting done because of the impeachment effort that's under way. of the really important things to recognize about the impeachment effort is he extent to which the materials are being kept in secret, not just from the from , but kept in secret other members. so we have had members go down and attempt to read the ranscript, for example, that had testimony and they were denied access. the constitution of the united power does not say that of impeachment resides with speaker pelosi. resides with the speaker of the house.

resides with the house reports. nd -- the house of representatives. it's shameful for them to be in ucting this exercise which they won't share information with members of the select few that they have identified. so we are going to continue to that, talk about that, and i'm in just a minute going to introduce one of our has a resolution that's focused very much on hairman schiff's just unconscionable behavior with respect to impeachment. at the same time, we're very what's happening in turkey.d the situation in syria today remains serious, remains grave. we will have a resolution that ill be -- a bill we'll be introducing today. leader mccarthy, whip scalise 70 -- and over 70 of our colleagues sanctioning

turkey. e have been working very closely with the senate, working very closely across the aisle as well. it's very important to recognize the impact, in articular, that the turks now are in a situation where we risk isis, where e of the turks have gone in and we see evidence of atrocities being and where our allies, the kurds, frankly, are facing betrayal from a the united states. that could have very negative onsequences and impacts for us globally. so we're going to continue to work with the president. be heat -- meeting with him this afternoon. to which the extent of america's security depends on ur allies recognizing we will stand with them and the extent to which the united states has of world ce the end war ii, a very important and

in terms of guaranteeing freedom, peace, prosperity, and security around globe. that is the right thing to do. e are the only ones who can do it. and if we step away from that role, if we go down the path by senator suggested paul and others into will ionism, then others fill that void and we are going to face the possibility of a world where america is not setting the rules but our chinese, the the russians, the iranians are rules and that's not a world that anybody wants to live in. it's important we maintain global engagement and we consider the costs of inaction. having der the costs of to go back in to situations where we've withdrawn from, we repeat the o mistakes of the obama era, which created the mess we inherited. i will be turning things over now to mr. biggs to

talk about his resolution. mr. biggs: thank you, madam chair. hanks to all of you for being here. you know, in the history of this country, there's been 19 votes impeachment. and every one of those votes produced articles of mpeachment or articles of impeachment began with a formal vote of the united states house representatives on an investigation and whether someone should be impeached. were federal judges. three of them were in presidential situations. what happened is it was an open process. those initial -- in opening f the investigation, the rules were set. determined what committee would whether the republicans or the minority, in this case, the republicans, and be allowed to call subpoena witnesses, that counsel would be present on behalf of

president. well, none of that happened in his case, and so we have some major problems because the peaker has taken it upon impeachment n an investigation outside the norm, e in violation of the house rules. there's nothing specifically in he rules except for this where there's nothing specific. our rules say precedent takes place. he's outside the rules because she's outside the precedent. she delegated this to mr. adam years told us two all about the evidence that was russian collusion except for when the mueller nvestigation came out, said there was no collusion, cooperation, coordination. since?happened at matter to -- e

first y to absolutely basery indicate -- he created a conversation. the conversation took place. of it. a transcript he had access to the transcript. e could have read the transcript and he made of something that absolutely was untrue. the basis the en much of what we hear about with regard to the impeachment. home to my district, which i did, people ask me few fically about that up.tes that mr. schiff made so before we left, i knew this would be a problem and with the behind me, we introduced -- i introduced a schiff.o censure mr. now, in the intervening time, he's taken this to a inquiry.yle that is to say everything's behind closed doors. absolutely no transparency. he's not letting this open up

to he so.y my colleagues go down and ask copy -- to read the copy testimony.er they are denied that. following this press conference, a group of my colleagues are goingto go down and we're to ask for our opportunity to read the volker transcript. sitting there. i sit on the judiciary committee. we're excluded from participating. we are not allowed into the room. you are not allowed into the room. that means the american public allowed into the room. so today, we're going to be forward with my motion to censure mr. schiff, joined by republicansority of in this conference pushing early 150 members and more coming up today to sign on. hope that we can get the message clear, make the message schiff and the democrats that what is -- how his is happening is absolutely

untenable, unacceptable, and unprecedent. process, and the american people are -- and this president deserves due process. deserve the transparency. with that we're going to press i appreciate the minori minority leader and his staff, y staff have worked diligently on this. and i'm grateful for their support and hopefully we can get we can sage through so change the very nature of this taking nquiry that's place today. want to -- oes i mr. scalise: i want to thank my bringing . biggs, for this resolution forward. when congress was not in from n, what we saw speaker pelosi and chairman alarming uld raise questions to people all across this country. ay are they trying to impeach president of the united states doors, in secret,

it, the public can't see the press can't see it, even noters of congress that are in the jurisdiction, can't read the testimony? what is chairman schiff trying the american people? we have an election next year. in act, we had an election 2016, and i understand that there were some people that donald trump but he won. he was duly elected by the people. some still haven't gotten over it and are trying to revert -- the decision that was made by the people of this country. again, we have an election for year.ent next speaker pelosi and adam schiff away the try to take rights of the american people to have that voice next year by doors and d closed trying to impeach a president of the united states without even high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the standard that the constitution

when they established the power of impeachment, which was given to congress. it was given with very specific limitations and requirements and responsibilities. and one of those is fairness. be of those should transparency. his should be done in public view. of why the volker testimony is the oing to be released to dripped en it's being selectively leaked that have shown to be untrue, misleading. point, adam schiff's opening statement when e didn't read the transcript from the whistleblower. he read his own version. version. it shows how unserious they are about this process that ought to it also shows that they continue to try to mislead the american people and

ide from the american people what the real facts are. this should be fact-based. t should be based on what actually did happen. and the entire press, the public see it.e able to members of congress should be able to see it. and adam schiff and speaker denying that opportunity. in fact, when i asked on the kwooirloor last night, a kwooir -- a parliamentary inquiry if we are currently, the house, in an impeachment inquiry. not only did they not answer the question, they should the microphone off. of n, these kind soviet-style tactics shouldn't frankly, a lot of people across the country are alarmed and disturbed. speaker he route that pelosi and adam schiff are going to go. they ought to be accountable. they ought to be transparent. way, there are a lot of other things that the house could be and should be doing to problems for families. we have passed a bill out of energy and ee -- commerce committee unanimously to lower drug prices.

very republican and every democrat on the member voted nanimously for a package of bills to lower drug prices. that could be signed into law by and families acro across america could be lowering of drugs but speaker pelosi refuses to bring it. a fair trade deal with north and in the south canada and mexico, 160,000 jobs that our country could already have. states like wisconsin and and ylvania and minnesota michigan could be selling their dairy products into canada right now. but speaker pelosi won't bring that bill to the floor because this so focused on impeachment witch-hunt. it's got to end. transparent be with the american people. but until then, we're going to ontinue to raise these serious questions and push for accountability and transparency. and with that our leader in this

fight, kevin mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: thank you, steve. good morning. welcome back to congress. for the last two weeks, we were district. our we're back, we're looking at a schedule for a floor that has are simply at amendments. that's not what the american ublic is asking us to be working on. we're having a discuss and china.tions with china is no longer our number one trader. mexico, in the last two months, became number one, and canada, number two. e have the united states-mexico-canada agreement. to act. waiting for us the speaker, if it's called up, it will pass. it will make america stronger. or importantly, it will make america stronger in our negotiations with china. something we look forward to find out what the next century

hold. but none of that is being done. we're 13 months away from an election where the american get to decide on their leaders. house, something much different. different eems to be in what -- than what the rest of america views when it comes to a legal system. think about what impeachment actually means. is the removal of somebody from office who was elected. that's something to be taken -- not to be taken lightly. something that will change the fabric of america. more importantly, the aspects of watching.f the world in america, you're innocent until you're proven guilty. not the case when the democrats look at the president. rose, what did he say, the president says he's innocent, he has to prove it. president, s to the the democrats believe you're guilty until you prove you're innocent.

ever ry process we've taken when it comes to is with the it seriousness which the founders constitution. we believe it was so powerful a decision to make, that the whole vote on it.have to we believed it was so important every american lends their voice for two years for a member of congress to represent them, have a say.ould that there should be a process not should be fair, because only would america look at it, the world would look at it, ecause america is more than a country. america is an idea. an idea so powerful that hong kong people in will come out in the street to crave for the right of freedom holds.erica but in this congress today, it playbook.e different no longer, as i said, are you innocent until proven guilty.

no longer are chairs held to a honesty.of when you serve on the intel committee, it's a little than any other committee in congress. why? read e you are privy to and to know information that not.rs of congress do so when you speak from an intel committee perspective, members listen a little longer. .

they ask do you know who this whistleblower is? no, we do not. now we find out from the american public that he lied one more time. not only did he know who the whistleblower was, the staff met with him. the staff then sent him to the inspector general. you know what the whistleblower did not say? that he met with the congressional member staff. in the judicial system in america, that would make you a fact witness. nowhere in american judicial system a fact witness ever allowed to be the prosecutor, but only in this house they are. could you imagine a chairman of the intel committee that has all this information, that told the american public and lied to them they do not know who the whistleblower was, who said there was quid pro quo, to

whacele blower who didn't have firsthand knowledge, and then read from that podium as the american people watched what he had hoped to be in the call. he was so convincing that the speaker of the house on national television with george stephanopoulos said it was rue. if anyone else in america let known the responsibility of a member of congress and then be a chairman of the intel committee did something like that, no doubt you should be censured. this is not about partisanship, this is about the responsibility of the office for which you hold. the responsibility that you are given for this committee. this committee is not selected by your conference. the republicans are selected by me and the democrats are selected by the speaker. to not hold the responsibility for an individual who continues

to lie to the american public, in a position to have information that others cannot within congress, goes against the framework of who we are. we are better than that. for those members who will not stand up for what is right, hame on you. in the system of america today, you have a better chance and luck of getting a fair judicial system in china than you do inside speaker pelosi's house. that's appalling. that's not the america we know and love. when impeachment came up and the republican president and richard nixon, there was a democrat speaker. they created a process that was fair so america would trust the outcome. when impeachment came up with the democratic speaker and mr. clinton, it was a republican speaker. and they made sure everybody had a choice and a process that

was fair because they knew the responsibility what they had for the american public to see and understand. for whatever decision they had to make at the end. that's not the case today. it's not even in the judicial committee where america can see t it's behind closed doors with a chairman who has lied three times to the american public looking them in the eye. and somehow we are supposed to trust what comes out of that? and they did he nigh members of congress for the power and voice of the american public to even read what was on. deny members of congress for even the ability to sit inside that committee. i sent the speaker a letter asking 10 simple questions. the questions were not made up by me. the questions were the process that we have always handled this before. questions go to the fabric of what america judicial system is about. would you treat somebody fairly

? would each be able to subpoena somebody? would you be able to cross-examination? would whoever you impeach be able to have a legal person inside there? would they ever offer a witness? that's what happens in america. we believe in the rule of law but not inside nancy pelosi's house. there's so much more we could be doing and should be doing. from strengthening our economy and debate with china to lowering prescription drugs to making sure our military has all that they need to defend us round the world. in a few short weeks we'll becoming -- be coming upon whether we have to face another continuing resolution or do the job the american public asked us to do. the question we'll raise to every single member inside this house, did you spend your time on impeachment or did you spend your time on what you are supposed to do that the american people asked you to do? unfortunately that answer today for the majority is no.

they have wasted three years. the saddest part of all this, just like adam schiff, they look the american voter in the eye and they promised them something. for the last election they promised they would be different. they promised they would focus on the issues that america cared about. but that's not the case. not only are they so upset by the last election, they'll change the legal system of what we have known america to be simply to change an outcome of a duel -- duly elected representative. that is why we will fight it. that is why i think the american public wants to have the answers. that is why this congress, this week, will take up two amendments, call a bill, and that's all we'll be focused. that's an embarrassment. more americans know about an investigation than they do

anything that this democrat socialist congress has accomplished. we are better than this. reporter: i hear all of you attacking the impeachment process but none of you defending the president's actions. do any of you think it was ok for the president to ask more than one nation to investigate his campaign rival? mr. mcyarte: the president wasn't campaign rival. he was trying to get to the bottom. why did we go through two years? why did we have in russia hoax that started within ukraine. this is an open case that the attorney general is investigate the. would you work with the attorney general? every single day in america we work with other countries to solve open cases. there is nothing that the president did wrong. there is nothing that the president did within that call that's impeachable. you know what? if the speaker would have waited 48 hours, 48 hours to have the transcript, we

wouldn't put america through this. if adam schiff, this would be a good question for the speaker, did the speaker know adam schiff's staff met with the whistleblower? the speaker made a decision to go into impeachment without even knowing what was on the phone call. the adam schiff share that with anybody in the democratic side? when and where did they know this? what did they know? what did they talk about? these are all questions that people should actually have an answer to. the president didn't do anything wrong. to preface this from the same point that adam schiff said before, he had proof, beyond circumstantial evidence, all the f.b.i., all the millions of dollars, you will the countries we had to go to we found out that was a lie. wouldn't you want to know as an american why did we put ourselves through that? that's exactly what the attorney general is doing. reporter: two questions. first, you just mentioned that

the mueller investigation, russia investigation began in ukraine. mr. mccarthy: elements. reporter: are you suggesting that paul manafort, who was tried and convicted in an american court was framed? mr. mccarthy: you literally took that from that? you literally are asking this question from that. that's nothing what i said. let's be honest in this approach. what i am saying is i want to know why we went through this for two years. i want to know where it came from. i don't know where it started. but what we know on the facts when you go through the mueller investigation, yeah, some of this was developed within ukraine. why shouldn't we ask that question? why shouldn't we ask that question to anywhere we know it? if we don't know the answer and you want to extrap plate something that was never said that is wrong. what i said is i want to get to the answer. bottom to the answer to the question. reporter: critical of democrats right now for a lack of transparency and the

process, but the white house has said that they are not going to turn over any documents. the president put out a letter saying he do does not plan to turn over any documents. how is that transparent in this process? mr. mccarthy: i think you go back to the white house to ask if they had a fair process would they act differently? i think from the aspect if you went through the same process, you would have transparency. if you want to talk about transparency, how transparent it is if a member duly elected to congress goes down to the of a to read a transcript question that just went through an interview. but the member of congress is denied the right to even read it. but if you're going -- i'm answering your question. it's about transparency, is it not? i would not participate in this process. i do not think congress should participate in this congress unless we have something that is fair and set up just as every congress has done before.

but that was the structure i would participate. that's the question you want -- yes, ma'am. reporter: is under investigation associates who helped him in ukraine also arrested last week. do you think he should still be the president's lawyer? do you have -- >> all this veilability c-span.org. we break away here taking you to the white house with video from the oval office with president trump and the italian president. president trump: thank you very much. it's a great honor to have the president of italy with us. he is a man of great distinction. he's highly respected in this country. nice to have you at the white house. thank you very much. mr. president.

we have had a great relationship with italy for a long time. i don't think it's ever been closer than it is now. we have won a $7.5 billion award from, as you know, i guess it's been pretty big news, i know that this is against the european union and world trade. good old world trade. long time they have been taking advantage of the united states and turkey will talk to us about their share of it because they feel they shouldn't have to pay so much. if you look at what's going on, italy is complaining about it. turkey. everybody's complaining about it. turkey's complaining about a lot of things. we are handling turkey very nicely. we have many countries complaining about the different awards that we have been winning lately from the courts. the reason we are winning is we are prope