Looking ahead at the process as it moves into the public sphere, what thealk about merits of your arguments look like. . President trump has urged republicans to fight this on merits, not the process. Can you talk about the arguments on the merits Going Forward . Congressman johnson we just had a lengthy press conference after the house floor from after the vote, which is bipartisan, by the way. Democrats voted not to proceed on the resolution. But we have had problems with process and the substance. And we are anxious to debate both of those things and to do it out in the open. We issued a challenge. Every member was standing together. The congressman said it well, he has been down, he has been hearing all this, and he challenged the drama ship to release the transcripts. But the facts out there. We want the American People to be able to judge for themselves the merits of these claims and allegations and we as elected representatives of the people should have a right to review that as well. That is our charge Going Forward and i think it is a good question and one that has yet to be answered. Scott do you have any concerns at all about what you have seen come out of these closeddoor hearings . We have the facts, we know what was we have the transcript from the call between the president nd the ukrainian president. We have some of the Opening Statements from some of the people who have testified, including bill taylor and Lieutenant Colonel vitamin winvinman, who has raised conce. Is there anything you have seen in terms of what has come out in public that you have concerns with . Cumbersome johnson what we congressman johnson what we know is the president made an unprecedented decision to release that call almost immediately when the charges were first being made. Every american citizen has the opportunity to review the transcript for themselves. We have witnesses coming forward , many of them could be challenged on credibility, could be effectively crossexamined, but in that super scary supersecret hearing room, i am told by my colleagues that they are not allowed to tell us much, but we are told that they complained loudly about the process itself. They are not allowed to ask certain questions. The chairman is not allowing the witnesses to answer, that is not a fair process. , the processimes has been out in the open. Previous congresses have been deliberate about that. Much was said today about the federalist papers. Alexander hamilton has been cited more times this week on the hill than perhaps any number of years combined, because he wrote specifically about this day. This was a fear of the founders, that partisan politics would be driving in impeachment quest. The democrats determined a long time ago what the outcome of this was going to be, it is a predetermined a political outcome and they are using the impeachment process to obtain that. That is not fair. It is an abuse of the system of justice and it assaults fairness. Congressman, as these hearings move into the public sphere and lawmakers and the public both will be able to see what some of these witnesses, i know democrats plan to bring back for public hearings, do you have any concern with the attacks this week from the president and his own former members of congress against Lieutenant Colonel vinman, ifut an erosion of trust there are attacks against other witnesses in these public settings . Rep. Johnson no, i spent over one hour with the president. We had a dozen members of the Republican Committee at the white house earlier this week on tuesday. Andthe president vented his frustration to us. I think that he is rightfully frustrated about this. He has been denied basic rights to due process in this charade at the adam schiff and his colleagues have engaged upon. And so there is a certain element of frustration. Are we concerned about the institutions of our intelligence apparatus, no. I am concerned about the congress itself. At the end of the day, one of the greatest concerns most deep, one of them deepest concerns we have about this sham. It is an actual summary of what people back is home are losing faith in the institution of congress itself. If they do not have any faith or trust that the impeachment process has been done right in a just and fair way, then they start to throw their hands up and give up on the congress itself, and ultimately on the republic. W e are still an experiment on the world stage. We are only 243 years into this and we do not know long how long it will last, but one thing that is predisposed is you will have fairness in the system and he will have the rule of law that applies equally to everyone. We have not had that this week or in the last few weeks, and that is a great concern. Host the white house, when theyve got the readout of the noticeall, noted in the to the public that it was not a word for word document, and that it was a memo, not a transcript of that phone call. Vinman has testified that there were words in that phone call that were not included in the readout or the memo that was made and given to the public much of the president release the entire phone call word for word to resolve this . Rep. Johnson i do not know, nor do you or anyone else, whether there is an actual recording of the call. I think there may be, but what we are told is it is customary for there to be a memo kind of transcript, a summary of the call, that is as we understand it, is drafted by a number of people, not just one transcriptionist. Been put into has the credibility of that transcript. Look, this is part of the factfinding that should be going on in my committee and the house judiciary committee, we are the ones who were supposed to have jurisdiction and we can have a fair hearing of facts, and if there are things in dispute we need to listen to that. But we have not had an opportunity to do that. The resolution passed at today does not allow for fairness either, that is why we voted against it. It allows unilateral authority to continue, first from adam schiff, then shifting to chairman nadler. They have ultimate authority to veto what the other side may do. So that is our concerned, we all know there will never be fairness in this process. Host should a president of the u. S. Ask a foreign power to investigate someone that in that investigation, it would benefit him, rep. Johnson what the president was asking was for an investigation of an event a couple of years earlier. He was not asking, and the transcript reflects this, he was not asking for dirt on a future political opponent for something that would happen in the future. He was trying to get to the bottom of corruption that many americans, millions of americans have concerns about. These are Unanswered Questions, and it is appropriate for leaders and heads of state to have these, a dialogue about things like that. There was some deep corruption involved here. The president was i think justified in his zeal to get answers on that. And so on its face, thats what it comes down to, arguing the substance. Some people might quibble about whether it was appropriate for the president to say it the way he did or what have you, but this is not impeachable conduct, this is not a high crime and misdemeanor, and i think that will be the inevitable conclusion that most americans will see. Greta you dont think an investigation of joe biden and his son would hurt the former Vice President politically in the 2020 election cycle . Rep. Johnson maybe it would, but that is not what the president asked, arguably its not what he was intending, and he was going after the corruption with a corrupt oligarch, a corrupt corporation, the idea that a Vice President s son has been hired at 50,000 a month to serve on a board for which he had no experience or insight. He had never done anything in the oil and gas industry or had any connection or expertise in matters dealing with ukraine. It looks on its face to be absolutely corrupt, and thats why a lot of people have serious questions about that. The president not least among them. So i mean, thats why people read the transcript and go where is the there . I mean yesterday, tom brokaw, someone who everyone respects in the media, he came out and said i dont see it, i dont see what democrats are basing this on. He contrasted it with the clinton impeachment process where they were clear facts. Very important issues on the table and everyone could clearly define them. He said they dont have that here and thats why so many of us are so frustrated. Scott mr. Johnson, what do you think the white house should be doing to fight impeachment as it goes forward into these public hearings . Do they need to set up a war room . It seems like mr. Mulvaney, your former colleague and the acting chief of staff, has been sidelined on a lot of these issues. Do they need a point person at the white house to be leading the charge against impeachment . What do they need to do better . Rep. Johnson well you know, i suppose they could study what previous administrations have done. Of course this is exceedingly , rare, this will only be the fourth time in u. S. History this has happened, and there is good reason for that. We all remember of course during the clinton impeachment, i think they did have a war room and a point person, a quarterback so to speak, over the effort to guard the president s interests. This is a very serious matter. It does not get more serious than this, and i think the president will take it seriously. I think Mick Mulvaney is a steady hand at the wheel. He will give good counsel. What we have to guard so jealously is the process, the procedure, and rule of law. Because that is what is going to be far longlasting beyond the Trump Administration and all of this, the Lasting Legacy of this will be how this congress and the legislative branch handled this important affair. I hope they are watching it closely and all of us are on our toes the entire time. We certainly plan to be in the house judiciary committee. Katherine on the judiciary committee, when you have the opportunity to get the information that comes out of both of these closed depositions and the public hearings in the Intelligence Committee is there , anyone that you specifically would like to be able to speak with and ask questions to that has not yet been brought behind closed doors or that you have heard could be in the open hearings . Rep. Johnson i will tell you who i would like to ask questions of first and foremost is adam schiff himself. As it was said in our press conference after the vote, if he wants to pretend he is ken starr, he needs to submit for a q a himself. I have an important list of questions for adam schiff. I would like to know first of all what relationship he and his staff had with the whistleblower in advance of all of this. And how all of that developed. There is a lot of Unanswered Questions that go to the very root of this entire process. He is the best person to answer those questions, so i would like to start with one of my colleagues on that regard, and then have the opportunity to ask questions of some of the folks who have already testified down in the skiff, in the secret deposition room, but also to present defense witnesses. Theyve not had a great opportunity to do that yet, if any at all. We intend to do that in the house judiciary committee. Greta congressman, what have you been told either from the house lawyers or otherwise about the whistleblowers name and whether or not you all could publicly say who this person is . Rep. Johnson thats the point, we have no idea. I mean, there is all sorts of innuendo and rumor around the hill on rumors like this, but we dont know that specifically. I dont know anything about it, and thats part of the concern. Really the only person in the capitol complex who knows who the whistleblower is is adam schiff. I am not sure anyone else knows it. There is all sorts of allegations and rumors, but we dont know anything. And that is kind of the scott point. Why dont we move on to some policy issues . I know as chairman of the republican study committee, you have just rolled out your new Health Care Plan in recent days. Can you talk a little bit about that plan, and why specifically now republicans are in the minority in the house, nancy pelosi is not going to move your plan to the house floor anytime soon for a vote talk a little bit about the main differences between your plan and the 2017 repeal and replace obamacare plan that as we all know failed by one vote in the senate a couple of years ago . What are the big differences . Rep. Johnson great question. We are really excited to roll this out a week ago, last tuesday. It is the product of almost a year of work down in the trenches. Everyone will remember in march, President Trump famously said the Republican Party will be the party of health care, you watch. People have been watching. I had the occasion to speak to the president a few days after he made that statement by telephone. And i said, i thank you for saying that. In the republican study committee, which is the largest caucus of conservatives in congress, we have 146 members, we divide into working groups and task forces, and one of our Priority Task forces in this congress has been on the issue of health care. The Health Care Task force led by Roger Marshall of kansas, my colleague, who is the chair of that. We have had a number of republican members in congress and others with positions of expertise in the area working regularly meeting since january on this. All of the effort that has gone into that, consulting with experts in the field, meeting with people across the health care spectrum, we distilled what we think were the best ideas and published it in a 66page document that we entitled a framework. It is a framework for personalized, affordable care. There is a deep and serious, stark contrast between what we are proposing and what the democrats are proposing. If you listen to those running for president on the democrat side, they basically have one of two solutions, double down on the failing status quo, the aca, which is a trajectory that is not sustainable, or they say lets turn it over to the government and have a onesizefitsall Government Run Health Care system. We believe either of those scenarios would be a disaster for the American Public, so we feel a moral obligation to step into this space. And provide solutions. We are really excited to have done that. It has gotten raving reviews so far across the spectrum, and its a great framework for us to go forward. With two objectives, scott, we believe we need to protect vulnerable americans, meaning people with preexisting conditions, chronic illnesses and Serious Health concerns, but also bring down the cost of health care. That means in deductibles, premiums, and Overall Health care costs. Those two pursuits are not mutually exclusive. We are showing a way to do that. Scott does the president have have you briefed the president on the plan . Is there buyin from the president . Does he support the plan . Rep. Johnson yes, weve kept the white house apprised of our efforts all year, beginning in march after the president made the statement. Weve been close coordination with the administration knowing that they are also developing plans in the health care space. So we worked in close coordination. I mentioned we met with the president last tuesday in the oval office, that was to talk about indepth the Health Care Plan. He is very grateful for it. Of course i spoke with him in the morning before we released it and did our Big Press Conference rolling out the plan, told him the highlights and reminded him of some of the things we had been working on and talked about in previous months, and he was very encouraging and very grateful that 146 members, conservatives in the house, are stepping forward with real ideas and solutions. We believe it is really important going into this next election cycle to talk about solutions and present sound ideas that are on the table. Also as you all know, the u. S. Court of appeals for the fifth circuit is likely to issue any day now their ruling in the azar case, a challenge to the underpinnings of obamacare itself, the aca. It is really important right now to put sound ideas on the table and have everyone talk about debating those things. We are ready to legislate if we have that moment. And if we dont have it now, since pelosi and the democrats are in charge, we are going to put our ideas on the table for what we will do when we maintain the majority. I think we will do that in the next election cycle. Katherine another policy issue. You previously led efforts to make changes to the foreign agents registration act, which requires lobbyists who lobby on the interests of foreign entities to register with the Justice Department so that we can keep track of who is peddling that influence. I have heard that there may be a new proposal in the works. Are you planning on or working on a new fara . Rep. Johnson i never let go of that objective, its one of the first pieces of legislation i filed when i was a freshman in congress in the 115th congress a couple of years ago. It is an idea whose time has come, and i think it is a bipartisan concern, something we can get folks across the aisle to work on together. We just need a better disclosure, better information about who exactly is lobbying members of congress. I think that is not a controversial notion that we need to clean up and close the loopholes in the foreign agents registration act. I do think there has been some work. I think senator grassley and others on the senate side have had similar legislation. We were going to do companion pieces in the last congress. We are still thinking about it, working on and looking for an opportunity to advance the legislation because i think it would be important for purposes of transparency and integrity of our system. Katherine do you think as the impeachment inquiry moves forward, there have been questions raised about who is representing different ukrainian entities for the u. S. Government . Do you see that as a window for this new proposal . Rep. Johnson it may be. Every time when there is an issue like this when lobby a