earlier today house minority leader kevin mccarthy along with other g.o.p. leaders spoke to reporters about the party's agenda and their opposition to the impeachment inquiry against president trump. here's their weekly news conference. >> good morning, everybody, welcome back. hope you all had an interesting and useful break. i know that all of my colleagues and i enjoyed very much the chance to be at home, talking to -- talking particularly with our constituents about the issues facing them and the real frustration i think that we all heard in terms of what's not getting done because of the impeachment effort that's under way. ms. cheney: i think one of the important things to recognize about the impeachment effort is the extent to which materials

are being kept in secret, not just from the public, but kept in secret from other members. so we have had members go down and attempt to read the transcripts, for example, that -- of testimony and they were denied access. the constitution of the united states does not say that the power of impeachment resides with speaker pelosi. doesn't say it resides with the speaker of the house, doesn't say it resides with the chairman of the intel committee. it says it resides in the house of representatives. and it is really shameful misteenager of their responsibilities and duties for them to be conducting this exercise in which they will not even share information with members of congress beyond the select few that they have identified. so we are going to continue to focus on that, talk about that and i'm in just a minute going to introduce one of our colleagues who has a resolution that's focused very much on

chairman schiff's unconscionable behavior with respect to impeachment. at the same time we are very focused on what's happening in syria and turkey. the situation in syria today remains serious, remains grave. we will have resolution that -- a bill we'll be introducing today, leader mccarthy, with scalise and i and over 70 of our colleagues sanctioning turkey. we've been working very closely with the senate, working very closely across the aisle as well. but it's very important to recognize the impact in particular that the turks now are in a situation where we risk the resurgence of isis. where the turks have gone in and we see evidence of atrocities being committed and where our allies, the kurds, frankly are facing what looks like a betrayal the united states. that could have very negative consequences and impacts for us

globally. so we're going to continue to work with the president, we'll be meeting with him this afternoon. but it is something we are very focused on from the perspective of the security of the nation with respect to isis as well as the extent to which america's security globally depends upon ourall lies, recognizing that we will stand with them. and the extent to which the united states has played since the end of world war ii a very important and unique role in term os guaranteeing freedom, peace, prosperity and security around the globe. that is the right thing to do. we are the only ones who can do it. and if we step away from that role, if we go down the path that's been suggested by senator paul and others, into isolationism, then others will fill that void. and we are going to face the possibility of living in a world where america is not setting the rules, but our adversary the

chinese the russians, the iranians are setting the rules. and that is not a world anybody wants to live. in so it's very important we make sure we maintain america's global engagement and that we consider the cost of inaction. we consider the cost of having to go back in to situations where we have withdrawn from. we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the obama era which created the mess we inherited. so with that, i will be turning things over now to mr. biggs to talk about his resolution. mr. biggs: thank you, madam chair. thanks to all of you for being here. in the history of this country there's been 19 votes for impeachment. every one of those votes that have produced articles of impeachment are actually on articles of impeachment began with a formal vote of the united states house of representatives on an investigation, whether someone should be impeached.

most of those were federal judges. three of them were in presidential situations. what happened is, it was an open process. then those initial opening of that investigation the rules ere set. what committee would be in charge. whether the republicans or the minority in this case, the republicans, would be allowed to call and subpoena witnesses. that council would be present on .ehalf of the president none of that happened in this case. so we had major problems because the speaker has taken it upon herself to run impeachment investigation outside the norm. in violation of house rules. there's nothing specifically in the rules except this. where there's nothing specific our rules say precedent takes place. so she's outside the rules

because she's outside the precedent. she delegated this to mr. adam schiff who for two years told us all about the evidence that was clear about russian collusion except when the mueller investigation came out, said there was no us clugse, ooperation, or coordination. he had the temerity to create this conversation. this conversation took place. he had access to the transcript. he could have read the transcript. instead he made whole cloth a fabrication. of something untrue. that's been the basis of much of what we hear about regarding

impeachment. so when i go home people ask me about that few minutes mr. schiff made up. so before we left i knew this would be a problem and with the leadership team behind me, we introduced, i introduced a otion tosen sure mr. schiff. now, in the intervening time, he's taken this to a soviet-style inquiry. that is to say everything's behind closed doors. there's absolutely no transparency. he's not letting this open up for anybody to see. my colleagues go down and ask for the copy-- to read the copy of the volker testimony. they are denied that. following this press conference, a group of my colleagues are going to go down and we're going to ask for our opportunity to read the volker transcript. we'd like to be 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

is not allowed into the oom. so today, we're going to be pressing forward with my motion to censure mr. schiff, joined by the vast majority of republicans in this conference pushing nearly 150 members and more oming up today to sign on. and we hope that we can get the message clear, make the message clear to mr. schiff and the democrats that what is-- how this is happening is absolutely untenable, unacceptable, and unprecedented. it is not due process, and the american people are-- and this president deserves due process. they deserve the ransparency. with that we're going to press orward, and i appreciate the minority leader and his staff, my staff have worked diligently on this. and i'm grateful for their support and hopefully we can get this message through so we can change the very nature of this unjust inquiry that's taking place today.

mr. scalise: i want to thank my friend, mr. biggs, for bringing this resolution forward. over the last few weeks, when congress was not in session, what we saw from speaker pelosi and chairman schiff should raise alarming questions to people all across his country. why are they trying to impeach a president of the united states behind closed doors, in secret, where the public can't see it, the press can't see it, even members of congress that are not in the jurisdiction, can't read the testimony? what is chairman schiff trying to hide from the american people? we have an election next year. in fact, we had an election in 2016, and i understand that there were some people that didn't support donald trump but he won. he was duly elected by the american people.

some still haven't gotten over it and are trying to revert-- reverse the decision that was made by the people of this country. again, we have an election for president next year. speaker pelosi and adam schiff should not try to take away the rights of the american people to have that voice next year by going behind closed doors and trying to impeach a president of the united states without even listing high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the standard that the constitution set 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. one of those should be transparency. this should be done in public view. of why the volker testimony is not going to be released to the public when it's being dripped, drabbed, selectively leaked that have shown to be untrue,

isleading. just case in point, adam schiff's opening statement when he didn't read the transcript from the whistleblower. he read his own version. a false version. it shows how unserious they are about this process that ought to be serious, but it also shows that they continue to try to mislead the american people and hide from the american people what the real facts are. this should be fact-based. it should be based on what actually did happen. and the entire press, the public should be able to see it. members of congress should be able to see it. and adam schiff and speaker pelosi are denying that opportunity. in fact, when i asked on the house floor last night, 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.

again, these kind of soviet-style tactics shouldn't be allowed, and frankly, a lot of people across the country are alarmed and disturbed. this is the route that speaker pelosi and adam schiff are going to go. they ought to be accountable. they ought to be transparent. by the way, there are a lot of other things that the house could be and should be doing to solve real problems for families. we have passed a bill out of energy and commerce committee unanimously to lower drug prices. every republican and every democrat on the member voted unanimously for a package of bills to lower drug prices. that could be signed into law by the president and families across america could be lowering the prices of drugs but speaker pelosi refuses to bring it. usmca, a fair trade deal with our friends in the north and outh, canada and mexico, 160,000 new jobs that our ountry could already have.

states like wisconsin and pennsylvania and minnesota and michigan could be selling their dairy products into canada right now. but speaker pelosi won't bring that bill to the floor because she's so focused on this impeachment witch-hunt. it's got to end. they ought to be transparent with the american people. but until then, we're going to continue 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 out and in our district. we're back, we're looking at a schedule for a floor that has two bills that are simply mendments. that's not what the american public is asking us to be working on. we're having a discuss and negotiations with china. china is no longer our number one trader.

mexico, in the last two months, became number one, and canada, number two. we have the united states-mexico-canada agreement. mexico has already ratified. canada is waiting for us to act. the speaker can call it up. if it's called up, it will pass. it will make america stronger. for importantly, it will make america stronger in our negotiations with china. something we look forward to find out what the next century will hold. but none of that is being done. we're 13 months away from an election where the american people get to decide on their leaders. but in the house, something much different. the house seems to be different than what the rest of america views when it comes to a legal system. think about what impeachment actually means. impeachment is the removal of somebody from office who was duly 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 the rest of the world watching. in america, you're innocent until you're proven guilty. but that's not the case when the democrats look at the president. congressman max rose, what did he say, the president says he's innocent, he has to prove it. when it comes to the president, the democrats believe you're guilty until you prove you're nnocent. in every process we've ever taken when it comes to impeachment, it is with the seriousness which the founders wrote in the constitution. we believe it was so powerful a decision to make, that the whole body should have to vote on it. we believed it was so important that every american lends their voice for two years for a member of congress to represent them, that they should have a say.

that there should be a process that should be fair, because not only would america look at it, the world would look at it, because america is more than a country. america is an idea. an idea so powerful that millions of people in hong kong will come out in the street to crave for the right of freedom that america holds. but in this congress today, it has a whole different playbook. no longer, as i said, are you innocent until proven guilty. no longer are chairs held to a standard of honesty. when you serve on the intel committee, it's a little different than any other committee in congress. why? because you are privy to read and to know information that embers of congress do not. so when you speak from an intel committee perspective, members listen a little longer. hey ask do you know who this

whistleblower is? no, we do not. they spent two years spending millions of dollars to find out that person lied. that person then looked in american's eyes again, said there's a whistleblower. quid pro quo. the whistleblower is being with held from even coming to committee. they asked, 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 act 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 whistleblower 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. his is not about partisanship, this is about the responsibilit 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 nd 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, there's a republican speaker and they made sure everybody had a voice and a process that was fair because they knew the respopsability for what they had for the merp people 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 hat?

and they deny members of congress who are lent the power and voice of the american public to read what's going 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 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 eople 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 e have known america to be

simply to change an outcome of a 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 is why we will fight it. 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? r. mccarthy: the president wasn't investigationing a campaign rival. the president was trying to get

to the bottom, just like every american would want to know. 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 ttorney general is investigate -- is investigating. the president simply said, 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 all. did adam schiff share that with anybody on 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 .b.i., all the millions of dollars, all the countries we had 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 extrapolate 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 intel o read a transcript of a 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 -- es, ma'am. reporter: rudy giuliani is under investigation, associates who helped him in ukraine also arrested last week. do you think he should still be the president's lawyer? second question, do you have any concerns about think his role in the ukraine episode? should he come up here to congress and speak to legislators?

mr. mccarthy: i think there'd be other people i'd have represent myself, i don't know from the point of view of, what was your second question? reporter: any concerns about his role -- mr. mccarthy: rudy giuliani has the right to get to the bottom of this. especially after you put america through this for two years. i think all of america wants to have the answer to that question. it would be appalling to me that we would not. think about what we just went through. think about how many millions of dollars we spent. think about what was said. why should any president, regardless of party, be held through this? why should we as a nation be put through something that was such a lie? you know. maybe it's fundamentally didn't start in ukraine. maybe it started at the d.n.c. when they spent $6 million of hiring somebody to create. it but the one thing i want to know, i want the answers to the question. because i don't want either party to be able to use something like that again. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] y >> next, the chair of the house democratic caucus, hakeem jeffries. and he and other democrats talked about the impeachment inquiry. they spoke to reporters during their weekly news conference. mr. jeffries: good morning, everyone. we had a very robust discussion in the caucus meeting today around issues connected to syria, which we'll talk about momentarily. and we have three distinguished co-chairs of the caucus, national security task force, with us. but also on h.r. 3, which is part of