Ms. Pelosi good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here. Well be joined by our distinguished chairman as soon as he finishes voting. Well begin by talking about how pleased i am with the work that our members did during the break. As i say all the time, we are legislating, we are investigating and we are litigating. On the legislative front, we had very great drumbeat across america for h. R. 3, our legislation to bring down the cost of prescription drugs now. Members had town hall meetings, press conferences and the rest, to listen to peoples concerns, to share what we intended to do. And now that were back this week, two committees, education and labor under bobby scotts leadership, will be marking up h. R. 3. Energy and commerce, under frank chairman frank pallone, will be marking up h. R. 3. And ways and means committee, mr. Neal, chairman neal will be having a hearing on the bill this week and marking it up next week. So were really going down a path of passing legislation that will be transformative in the lives of the American People. For what it will save them, what it will save the taxpayers. Might be interesting to know that in the course of this past week or so, Congressional Budget Office reported that h. R. 3 will save taxpayers 345 billion on the Medicare Part d piece alone. And that it will the office of the actuary reported that drug negotiations and medicare inflation rebates will save households 158 billion. And private businesses, 48 billion. Between 2020 and 2029. So were very, very proud of the savings that will be for people in their individual lives, for businesses and for the taxpayer. How we spend that money, some of it will be used for reinvesting and to benefit making medicare a more substantial benefit. Some of it will be for innovation and research at the National Institutes of health. Some will be for benefits, whether its dental, visual vision, hearing, whatever with medicare. I mentioned that. But there are other considerations as well. The committees, as they mark up the bill, will make those proposals. The amendment process on the floor will take us to another point. And other ways we may want to invest some of that money for the benefit of americas working families and for innovation and research. Earlier today some of you were with us when we had the announcement of chairman bobby Scotts College affordability act, strong legislation to make Higher Education more affordable, expanding opportunity and improving access to quality education. This week, as all through the break and continuing this week, weve been working on the u. S. Mexicocanada trade agreement. We hope to be on a path to yes. Were still waiting for assurances about enforceability in it because you can have all the good provisions in the world, but if you cant enforce them, youre just having a conversation. Some of the concerns we have about the u. S. China relationship, are they really going to honor any commitments that they make . Buying foreign products, thats good, but what about the other, other considerations that hurt americas Manufacturing Base and the rest . We will see. It seems to me it was a small bill. In terms of guns, again, this is a bullet. I was in florida for i was all over the country, but when i was in florida, i received this from frederica wilson, my colleague. Bracelets are made with bullets in the color orange, which is the color of gun violence protection. I told the president , were not going away until we get this background check bill passed. But it is just among the other forthepeople agenda legislation that we have. Legislate, investigate, mr. Schiff, mr. Chairman, will be here shortly. Hell report on some of that. I just want to say how proud i am of him and the members of the Intelligence Committee for being here over the break. For the valuable legislation investigations that they have done and youll hear from him momentarily. In terms of litigation, we have been very successful in the courts. Last friday we won five decisions in our favor. In terms of congress authority under the constitution. And today another decision came down in our favor in relationship to emoluments. You probably have that information on your phone. But, again, another recognition that our founders had very deep suspicion about foreigners interfering in our government. And again, in our elections, and the emoluments clause was put there specifically for that purpose. To protect us from any influence of Foreign Governments. So the fact that we would be here in an inquiry that relates to the president asking a Foreign Government to help the president in his reelection, by granting or withholding the timing of military assistance that had been voted on by the congress is just has so many violations in it. It undermines our national security. We were sending that military assistance because of ukraine needing that visavis russia. All roads seem to lead to putin with the president , though. Isnt it so. And then when we talk about undermining the integrity of our elections, thats wrong. And when youre talking about violating the president s oath of office to protect, defend and preserve the constitution of the United States, to the best of his ability, thats the president ial to the best of his ability. Well. Well go with that. In any event, the rulings were that we won last week were three of them are against the president s hateful public charge rule from taking effect. A ruling against the president s sham National Emergency declaration to build his wasteful border wall. A ruling in the case which was led by chairman Cummings Oversight Committee that reaffirms congress authority and responsibility to conduct oversight and consider legislation on behalf of the American People. And the court ruled the following in that case. Contrary to the president s arguments, the committee possesses authority under both the house rules and the constitution to issue the subpoena and messrs. Must comply. So, again, five victories on friday. One today in terms of the emoluments but that just happened. We just had a meeting with our caucus to be brought up to date on where we are on our legislative agenda. As i mentioned, were legislating, were litigating, were investigating and leading that for us is our very distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee, mr. Schiff, who has just completed voting and will join us here. The speaker doesnt vote unless its a tie. Unless you have any questions about our legislative agenda. Reporter [indiscernible] ms. Pelosi which one . Reporter you spoke to senator graham about \[indiscernible] ms. Pelosi we spoke about some sanctions bills and also about having legislation, a joint resolution, housesenate, bipartisan to oppose the president s decision about syria. Hopefully well take some of that up this week. Mr. Eliot engel is leading the way for us under the Foreign Affairs committee. Im hopeful that i think senator graham kind of fell back a little bit. I dont know, his language got a little weaker. I dont know what happened with the white house. But hopefully hes still where he was in the conversation that we had, that we would have a bipartisan bill to oppose the president s decision terribly dangerous decision and that we would have legislation with strong sanctions in it against turkey. The president gave the green light to turkey to go in and commit this humanitarian disaster onto the kurds, making us an untrustworthy ally. And then had a wet noodle for his sanctions. Which just were not up to the task. So thats where we are. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schiff thank you, madam speaker. Wanted to give you a brief update on the investigation. In the last couple of weeks, i think weve made dramatic progress in answering some of the questions surrounding that july telephone call between President Trump and president zelensky in which the president of the United States sought to coerce a vulnerable ally into conducting i think what can best be described as sham investigations involving his aponent and into involving debunked Conspiracy Theory about the election. We have learned that call was not in isolation. That was great deal of preparatory work that was done before the call. There was a lot of followup work done after the call. We have learned much of this thanks to the courageous testimony of state Department Officials who have been put in an impossible situation by the administration, and that is urged not to comply with the law. Urged not to comply with a lawful subpoena by the u. S. Congress. And they are doing their duty. And people should make no mistake about that. They are doing exactly what theyre required to do. And i think showing enormous courage. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to Public Servants like the ambassador who had to endure so many false smears on her character and has continued to show the courage to come forward and speak to our committees. We are also learning a great deal on the issue of conditionality. That is, the effort to condition a white house meeting that was desperately sought by the ukraine president in order to get a commitment from that president to do these political investigations on behalf of the president of the United States. So were learning a lot about the conditionality of that meeting. And i want to underscore just how important that meeting was for ukraine. It is, i think, at the very top ask of most countries to have a meeting with the president of the United States. But this is most particularly true for a country thats been invaded by its neighbor, russia. That is in the midst of still a very hot conflict, that is dependent on us economically, politically, diplomatically, militarily. To show that the new president had a Good Relationship with the president of the United States. And so that gave enormous leverage to President Trump to coerce what he wanted from the president of ukraine. What is so damaging about this is, at the very time the state department is trying to urge ukraine to follow the rule of law, you have the president of the United States urging that president to engage in political investigations. You could not have a message more contradictory to that of the state department than that what we saw in that call. So weve been bringing witnesses in at quite a furious pace. That pace is only accelerating. We have a very busy few days and weeks ahead. But we are running into what we expected in one aspect and that is a complete effort by the administration to stonewall. Today is long past due, the date when the state department was subpoenaed to provide documents. The subpoena the state department has requested of those that we have contacted, that instead of giving the documents to us, that they give the documents to the state department. Under the expectation, i think, these witnesses had that the state department would turn them over to congress. But the state department has thus far refused. And were it not for the fact that at least some witnesses have given us documents, we would not know that there is a paper record of efforts to condition this meeting and perhaps condition military support itself on these political investigations donald trump wanted. Those documents would have been completely bottled up by the state department. We know from the witnesses who have come forward that there are additional documents that they have provided the state department that have not been given to congress. And so the evidence of obstruction of Congress Continues to mount. Today was the deadline for the office of management and budget. And the deadline for the pentagon to provide us documents. The secretary of defense on sunday stated that he would comply with the congressional subpoenas. Well, apparently his willingness to comply has now been countermanded by a higher authority. We must presume that the president of the United States has instructed the Defense Department not to comply. Or through has done so through the white House Counsel. Notwithstanding the defense secretarys willingness to comply with lawful process. The office of management and budget have a pivotal role in the suspension of that Ukraine Military assistance. They refuse to provide the documents that would give evidence as to why that was being done. And so the case for obstruction of Congress Continues to build. But even as that case for obstruction continues to build, we are nonetheless continuing to get good and Important Information from these courageous witnesses. And im happy to respond to a couple questions. [talking simultaneously] reporter find it important to keep this portion of the inquiry behind closed doors . At what point will you bring the American People into this process . Mr. Schiff thats a very important question. I think people need to understand the fundamental difference between where we are today with the ukraine investigation and how the russia investigation was conducted, how the watergate investigation and how the clinton investigation were conducted. In each of those cases, there were either independent counsels or special prosecutors doing the investigation, doing the initial investigative work, and that was all done behind closed doors. And it was done behind closed doors for a reason by those special counsel. And that is there is a profound investigative not only interest but need to make sure that one witness does not have an opportunity to read another witness testimony and either hide the truth or color the truth or know just how much they can give and how much they can conceal. Im sure the president would like Nothing Better than to have witnesses have the advantage of what others are saying. But there are reasons why special counsel mueller did his investigation before a grand jury and not in public sight. There are reasons why the watergate and clinton special counsels did their investigation in like manner. There is no special counsel investigation going on of the president s misconduct visavis ukraine. None. Congress has to do it. And the reason there is none is because bill Barrs Justice Department when a referral was made to the justice department, said, theres nothing to see here. And we dont even want to look. Because the fundamental attitude of the attorney general is the president is above the law. Well, the president is not above the law. But it has forced the congress to do the initial investigative work that normally a special counsel would do. So there are good and sound reasons. Now i should tell you that notwithstanding those good and sound reasons, at each of these Committee Interviews and depositions and when we get to open hearings and we will get to open hearings, the republicans are completely represented. All of the members of these three committees have been invited to attend and participate and ask questions. Their staff have been invited to ask questions. And indeed we have been alternating one hour for the majority, one hour for the minority, 45 minutes each, they have been largely staffconducted interviews. Theyve been very professionally done. Although members too ask questions. And we go until the questions are exhausted. So they get to ask whatever questions they want. In a process in which they have every bit as much opportunity as the majority to ask questions. And so people need to understand, notwithstanding, i think, some of the representations to the contrary, there is full participation by the g. O. P. In each one of these interviews and depositions and there will be in the open hearings. We do anticipate a time when well be releasing transcripts. And we do anticipate there will be a time when we may call back some of these witnesses for open session. And we may call witnesses in open session that we havent called in closed session. But we will do so, giving the g. O. P. Members every opportunity to ask questions, and we will also do so, though mindful of the needs of the investigation, because, you know, we are not unconscious of the fact that people have come before our committee and lied to our committee. One has pled guilty to lying to our committee, michael cohen. One is in trial charged with lying to our committee. We want to make sure that we get to the truth and this is the process i think early in an investigation that makes the most sense. [talking simultaneously] reporter theres been some concern that the white house would invoke executive privilege to keep some of your witnesses from testifying fully. I know you dont want to go into the content what have people are telling you, but can you say if all of the witnesses who have come before you thus far have been fully cooperative . Are they able to answer every question and not being prohibited from doing so once you get them in the room . Mr. Schiff they have been fully cooperative. They understand their legal obligations. They have often sought guidance from the white house, are you invoking a privilege . Where is the d. O. J. Opinion, which usually accompanies the invocation of a privilege, setting out specifically what questions you believe would elicit, call for the elicitation of privileged information. The white house hasnt done it and they dont want to do it. They havent given specific guidance to these witnesses. Part of this is designed to try to intimidate these witnesses and say, were not going to tell you what may be privileged, we want you to take the risk. Its a way of trying to chill them from cooperating. Its not working but i think thats the goal. We have seen a white House Counsel take the unprecedented position that not only is a direct conversation with the president privileged, but even a conversation with donald trump when he wasnt president is privileged. According to this white House Counsel. Even a conversation with someone who never worked for the president is privileged or could be, according to white House Counsel. Even a conversation in which two people, neither of them are the president , may be privileged. Its unrecognizable. Our conversation may be privileged, according to the white House Counsel. Reporter i hope not. Mr. Schiff i hope not too. [laughter] but it goes to show the legally insupportable position of the white house. And indeed you see this now reflected in Court Decision after Court Decision after Court Decision where judges have said the administrations legal arguments hold no water. But what they are succeeding in doing is building a case involving obstruction of congress. Reporter the white house said its not cooperating in part because there hasnt been a vote to formalize this impeachment inquiry. Why not hold a vote and call the white houses bluff . Mr. Schiff ill let the speaker respond to that. But i think the constitution is very clear. The house will have the sole power of impeachment. Theres no court thats going to find otherwise. And i think the republicans know it. But they dont want to discuss the president s conduct. They would much rather discuss process. Because they cant defend the president s conduct. And every time theyre asked, you see just how difficult, how indeed impossible it is to justify the unjustifiable. Ms. Pelosi as the distinguished chairman said, theres no requirement that we have a vote and so at this time we will not be having a vote and im very pleased with the thoughtfulness of our caucus in terms of being supportive of the path that we are on in terms of fairness and in terms of seeking the truth, in terms of upholding the constitution of the United States. Thank you. Reporter thats a very key point, though. The chairman said the constitution is clear about what [indiscernible] but when you hear from your caucus, youre not ready to have a vote yet, why not call the administrations bluff . Ms. Pelosi because were not here to call bluffs. Were here to find the truth, to uphold the constitution of the United States. This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious. And were on a path that is taking us to a path to truth and a timetable that respects our constitution. I remind you that this news broke on september 17. Constitution day. Constitution day. The day our constitution was adopted in 1787. It broke that the president had violated his oath of office to protect and defend and preserve the constitution of the United States. To the best of his ability. So we are honoring our responsibilities, we are honoring the constitution. Thats not what theyre doing. Reporter are you concerned about them trying ms. Pelosi im not concerned about anything. Oh, they cant they cant they have no substance. They cant defend the president. So theyre going to process. Were not going there. Thank you all very much. Reporter are you proud of his Opening Statement that he gave where he fabricated the conversation between the two president s . Before the closeddoor house Intelligence Committee meeting on the impeachment inquiry of President Trump, Oversight CommitteeRanking Member jim jordan spoke to reporters. Mr. Jordan we have had three days of testimony, all behind closed doors, three unique perspectives the American People didnt get to see, in this partisan and unfair process that nancy pelosi and adam schiff are running. All based