This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," January 9, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: We are live at the White House, the president preparing to leave at any moment now for a big rally tonight in Toledo, Ohio, as Democrats in the House debate whether to rein in his war powers. That debate is going on as we speak. Crazy day, busy day, thrilling day. Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. Coming up, we're going to talk to a Democrat who plans to vote against that resolution. First to John Roberts at the White House with the very latest -- John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon to you. It is possible that we may hear more from the president this afternoon, as he leaves the White House in a few minutes' time, headed for a big campaign rally in Ohio, though, as of late, he has held fire, kept his powder dry, not said anything on the way out of the White House, saved it for the rally. And he did talk at length this morning, an event in the Roosevelt Room. But, at the moment, a heated debate going on, on the House floor over this war powers resolution that Democrats have introduced to try to clip the president's wings when it comes to taking future military action against Iran, if the president deems that necessary. Listen to New York Congressman Lee Zeldin within the last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LEE ZELDIN (R-NY): I say, good riddance. Why are we having this debate? We should be coming together, not as Republicans first, not as Democrats first. We should be coming together as Americans first and voting this down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has been extremely critical of the president's foreign policy, says Congress needs to check his power. Here's what she said at a press conference this morning:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): We must avoid war. And the cavalier attitude of this administration, it's stunning. And the president to say, oh, I inform by reading my tweets, no, that's not the relationship that our founders had in mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: The president voicing his opposition to the measure in a tweet this morning, saying -- quote -- "Hope that all House Republicans will vote against crazy Nancy Pelosi's war powers resolution. Also, remember her speed in rushing getting the impeachment hoax voted on and done? Well, she never sent the articles to the Senate. Just another Democrat fraud. Presidential harassment." In the Roosevelt Room this morning, though, the president leaving the door open to informing Congress just a crack when asked if he might inform Congress before taking military action in the future. Listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Would you seek congressional approval?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It would all depend on the circumstance. I don't have to. And you shouldn't have to be able -- because you have to make split-second decisions sometimes. Sometimes, you have to move very, very quickly, Jon. But, in certain cases, I wouldn't even mind doing it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Don't forget, this resolution is nonbinding. It's a concurrent resolution. It is not a joint resolution, which Republicans say means that it has absolutely no teeth. But when asked about that this morning, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said -- quote -- "This is a statement of the Congress of the United States. And I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not." Don't forget, Neil, as a concurrent resolution, this doesn't go to the president for his signature, nor can he veto it. But there's a lot of debate here as to whether or not this thing really means anything more than just a political debate in the House and an upcoming one in the Senate -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, John Roberts at the White House, thank you very much. I want to take you very quickly to the floor of the House. Nancy Pelosi is addressing, laying out the groundwork for that House resolution the rein in the president's military initiatives here. It is expected to go along party lines there, but not exactly and completely along party lines. Democratic Congressman of New York Max Rose joins us right now from Washington. And, Congressman, you place your limits here. You are against this measure to limit the person president's powers here, right?

REP. MAX ROSE (D-NY): Sure. Well, absolutely. And, first of all, happy new year to you, Neil.

CAVUTO: To you as well.

ROSE: It's great to -- great to see you again. Let's be clear about what has happened over the last several weeks. First of all, the killing of Qasem Soleimani was legal, justified. Nobody should mourn the loss or the death of someone with the blood of U.S. soldiers on his hands. He was a terrorist. In the immediate aftermath of that killing, though, I, along with many members of Congress, came out and said, it matters what happens tomorrow. In the event of an inevitable Iranian retaliation -- and at that point -- we didn't know what it would look like, we were not interested, no one should be interested in war, unless you have to go with war. And I was encouraged, encouraged by the fact that the president de- escalated the situation. And so now here we find ourselves -- and I do not believe that what this calls for is a political messaging document. Instead, what we have to do, in a bipartisan fashion, is talk about separation of powers, talk about revising these authorizations for the use of military force, which are more than 20 years old or nearly 20 years old. We have serious questions to consider. This is not the way to do it.

CAVUTO: All right. So, when your colleagues say they weren't convinced, given the briefings on the justification for this attack on Soleimani, you obviously differ?

ROSE: Well, yes, look, there are several justifications for this. One, you have Article 2. But, secondly, you have the 2002 AUMF. Qasem Soleimani has killed so many soldiers, injured so many others. I think about people I served with in Afghanistan who this man nearly killed. So, yes, I understand that. And, also, may I -- may I say that, when we're looking at men and women in uniform, you can't one day talk about assaults on our institutions, trusting people, trusting people, and then the next day not trust people. But, with that being said, that is a matter of assaulting, killing a terrorist. Now we have real questions of war and peace. But those questions have to be dealt with through looking at the authorization for the use of military force, looking at congressional appropriations for long-term and protracted wars. Shouldn't be dealt with messaging documents and straight-up politics. Congress is not a rapid-response P.R. agency. It is a serious body, and we have got to treat it as such.

CAVUTO: You are a Democrat in a very Republican district. And some are reading into this decision that you wanted to counter the controversy that you found yourself in by going ahead and pursuing impeachment and finding justification for it. What do you say?

ROSE: Well, first of all, I'm not in a Republican district. I'm not in a Democratic district. I'm in a patriotic district, voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and then voted for Max Rose in 2018. When the impeachment inquiry and impeachment decision was being made, I said one thing over and over and over again. And that was, this is the second most consequential decision I could ever, ever have to deal with as a member of Congress, the first being the decisions of war and peace. And now here we are not too long after. I will never play politics with a decision like this. So people can say what they want. I do not care. What I do care about, though, is keeping America safe, and treating our men and women in uniform with both the respect that they deserve, as well as treating them as the most potent natural resource that we have, not to be unnecessarily sent into war, but also not to be unnecessarily constrained.

CAVUTO: Congressman, thank you very, very much. We will see what happens.

ROSE: Thank you so much for having me.

CAVUTO: Well, the congressman may be against it. Yesterday, on this very show, you saw Republican Senator Mike Lee ripping the White House. And that prompted a response by no less than Senator Chuck Grassley when he joined me on my FOX Business show earlier today. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Drive-by notification or after-the-fact lame briefings, like the one we just received, aren't adequate.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): I was satisfied with the briefing. It kept -- it gave me all the information that I needed that the president acted in a constitutional and legal way in doing what he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, in the meantime, are Republicans divided on this? Because West Virginia Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito joins us on this. Now, there are vastly, Senator, more Republicans who are probably in line with those who support the president on this and felt there was plenty of justification for it. Where do you stand?

SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R-WV): Well, I definitely think the president did the right thing, and I think it was very justified. I think the briefing that we had yesterday was very informative. We had the secretary of state, secretary of defense, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the head of the CIA, that I believe gave me enough adequate information, more than adequate information, to know that there was an impending issue that Soleimani was working on. We already saw him storm our embassy and lead that -- lead that charge.

CAVUTO: Did they spell that out, Senator? I mean, I guess you can't reveal what happens in a briefing, nor would I want you to do, to compromise either yourself or the nation. But, apparently, what I read between the lines, even, with Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee is that the compelling evidence of future attacks or what was being planned was just not there. Now, neither blamed the president for that. They did blame those who were sharing that information.

CAPITO: Look, you have to look at what the intelligence resources are that we have and how accurate they are. We were -- they were accurate enough to pinpoint to be able to take him out in a strike in Iraq. Those are tightly held sources in the CIA and across our intelligence community. I believe that, if -- the specificity of which we got was enough for me and time frames. But we couldn't tell -- I don't think that you want to get so specific that you give up your sources. And they made that clear over and over again.

CAVUTO: You know, this comes at the same time that they're moving right now on impeachment, proceeding with that, getting the articles of impeachment to the Senate and all of this. Is anything else likely to get done in this environment?

CAPITO: Well, we're hoping to do the USMCA trade agreement. We are -- we had hoped that we could get it done next week. If she doesn't send the articles over, I would be looking for that. The only thing that's holding us there is, we have five other or six other committees it has to go through, because of our rules.

CAVUTO: Right.

CAPITO: However, that is going to be a major boost. The president's going to be signing a trade agreement with China in the middle of the month. We have a transportation bill that was worked through my committee that I worked very aggressively on that needs to be done by September the 30th. I mean, there are plenty of things on our plate that we should be and could be doing. But we're in a waiting game now with some kind of weird strategy that the speaker's employed. So we -- we're kind of hung up right now, waiting for her to send those over to us, so we can begin acting on them.

CAVUTO: And once she does, we're told right now that Mitch McConnell wants to make sure the impeachment process moves along relatively quickly. He is open to addressing later on the need for witnesses.

CAPITO: Right.

CAVUTO: We know of at least three of your Republican colleagues who seem to be open for that. You need a simple majority of senators to do that.

CAPITO: Right.

CAVUTO: So you would need just one more. Are you that one more?

CAPITO: Well, I think that remains to be seen. I think we have to hear the articles presented by the managers of the House. We need to see the president's defense. We haven't heard that. He hasn't been given the right to make a defense for himself over on the House side. We need to hear that. And then we're going to have questions that we're going to offer, just like was done in the Clinton trial -- or impeachment trial. And so, when we get to that point, then we will vote on witnesses. But you know what? We're going to have plenty of votes on how many, what testimony, what other kinds of information we need to have. There are going to be vote after vote on this, because it's going to be used as a political instrument, just like the impeachment articles are being used as a political instrument as well.

CAVUTO: Senator, thank you for joining us. Happy new year to you.

CAPITO: Thanks. You too. Thanks.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator Capito. We are waiting for the president. He will be leaving for a political rally tonight in Toledo, Ohio. You know how that goes. Sometimes, on his way out to Marine One, he talks to the press. He did a lot of talking to the press earlier at a White House event today, at which he, by the way, was talking about that plane crash in Iran that all fingers seem to be pointing increasingly to Iranian-caused, in other words, an errant missile on the part of the Iranians. The Pentagon saying that. The president is saying that. And now other people are looking at the implications of that -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Somebody could have made a mistake on the other side. It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood, and somebody could have made a mistake. Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, soon after the president said that he was thinking the Iran situation was Iran-caused, that it shot down, maybe accidentally, that Ukrainian airliner, by mistake, the Pentagon came out and said that our intelligence shows it is highly likely that is exactly what happened. And then the Canadian prime minister, feeling the heat from all of this himself -- keep in mind, 63 of the plane's victims were from Canada -- was saying all fingers do point to Iran. Iran, of course, is denying all of this. Our Jennifer Griffin has the latest from the Pentagon -- Jennifer.

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Neil, the Pentagon is not issuing any statements on the record. But a senior U.S. official confirms to me it was a Russian-made SA-15 missile that the Iranians fired that brought down the Ukrainian civilian airliner, an absolute tragedy. The official told FOX News they just screwed up and it is tragic. The Canadian prime minister is demanding answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence, the evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. This may well have been unintentional.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: The missile that brought down the plane was fired from an SA-15 Gauntlet mobile missile defense launcher. That missile defense system would have likely been put on alert to defend against a possible U.S. response to the Iranian missile strike targeting Americans in Iraq. The SA-15 and other Russian-made missile systems are programmed to lock onto anything metal that looks like a missile. The Ukrainian civilian airliner with 176 people on board crashed two minutes after takeoff while still in its ascent. On radar, it easily could have been mistaken for an incoming missile. The SA-15 and air defense systems like it have a manual and automatic mode. If in automatic mode, it could have fired without a human being ordering the strike. The Iranians would likely turn on their missile defense systems expecting a U.S. response. Protecting its airport in strategic locations in Tehran would be expected. The Iranian authorities have been unwilling to hand over the black box recovered from the wreckage of the relatively new Boeing 737 passenger jet. And there were no radio calls from the cockpit before the plane suddenly fell out of the sky, suggesting an explosion. Iran's head of civil aviation, meantime, dismissed these reports, calling them illogical rumors. But U.S. officials who are seeing an intelligence picture emerge based on satellite and infrared imagery and intercepts now suggest otherwise, Neil.

CAVUTO: Jennifer Griffin, thank you very much. My next guest says there's no reason to dispute that this was an anti- aircraft missile bringing this jet down. Former commercial airline pilot Kathleen Bangs on that. Kathleen, very good to have you.

KATHLEEN BANGS, FORMER COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOT: Hey, Neil.

CAVUTO: We do know that, for the first two minutes of the flight, it wasn't uneventful, the standard takeoff, then some sort of catastrophic event. So it does point to an explosion of some sort. We do know people saw flames as it was crashing back to earth, fell into many, many pieces. What are we to glean from all of that? What do you glean from that?

BANGS: Well, we're really fortunate that we have that video, which many people have seen, I'm sure you have seen it, that shows in the early pre- dawn hours, so it's still dark, it shows that jet coming out of the sky. It looks to be the starboard or right side is on fire. But what's interesting, it's not just an engine fire. We see actual debris and flames trailing from the airplane before the impact. The elevation of the Tehran Airport is a little over 3,000 feet. They lost radar contact with the airplane and about 7,900 feet. So we know the plane gained about 5,000 feet in altitude over the two to three minutes that it was airborne. But if we were to believe what the Iranian officials have wanted to, to sell us, that this was an engine fire, it would be beyond rare that that would actually take down an airplane. These engines are built -- this engine was only three-and-a-half years old -- to keep a fire contained. Even if we had an uncontained engine catastrophe, the chances of it bringing down the whole aircraft is so rare. Another thing I want to point out is that Iranian officials keep making a lot about the supposed to turn that the aircraft made, that the aircraft was turning back to the airplane (sic), meaning that the pilots knew they had an engine failure, they were following standard protocol, which is in most scenarios, if you have an engine fire -- failure after takeoff, you would turn back to the airport. But if you look at it, the airplane really only turned 15 or 20 degrees, and that doesn't mean it was at all intentional by the pilots. It could have just been due to an explosion, which, in this case, we're getting more and more evidence looks like it was a surface-to-air missile.

CAVUTO: It doesn't look like the Iranians, not only are they not taking any blame or accountability for this, but they're not sharing that black box, certainly with Boeing. They obviously could go and share it with a third-party country. Canada comes to mind, because 63 of the victims were from Canada.

BANGS: Right.

CAVUTO: How do you think that goes?

BANGS: Well, this has been misreported a lot about the not sharing it with Boeing. That's never the first thing that happens when you get the data recorder or the black boxes. What's going to happen is, it's going to go to the agencies that would investigate this, like the NTSB. And they have made quite a bit about saying that the Iranians aren't cooperating with the Americans. But Iran put out a statement through ICAO today, which is an international airline organization, saying that they are willing to work with the NTSB, they have said they're interested in possibly working with the European countries such as Sweden, and that they are going to work with Canada.

CAVUTO: All right.

BANGS: They have also allowed a team of 30 to 35 Ukrainians to come to Tehran today to help in the investigation. So I do think, obviously, with the sanctions in place, it's tough for the NTSB or Boeing to go over there directly and work with them, but through a third party, such as Canada, hopefully, that will be possible. The good news on this today is at least the victims of the families are getting some information.

CAVUTO: Very well put. Kathleen Bangs, thank you very much. Jeh Johnson on all of this -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, they're dotting the I's, crossing the T's on this war resolution act, where they're trying to rein in the president's powers to not repeat another act like that against this Iranian general, who was taken out a week ago today. It's expected to fall largely along party lines, and Democrats largely supporting this effort, Republicans largely not. Then there's someone like Jeh Johnson, Barack Obama's homeland security secretary, who took issue with making an issue out of this, period. Jeh Johnson is here to explain. Very good to have you, sir. I just saw you in Washington a few hours ago.

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Neil, how are you?

CAVUTO: Let me ask you a little...

JOHNSON: I was actually there.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I know. I know, so you beamed yourself here. I appreciate it.

JOHNSON: Thanks.

CAVUTO: You were not trying to make a political point of this, just to say that the president was justified in taking Soleimani out. Is that the gist of it?

JOHNSON: What I have said is that, under existing Office of Legal Counsel opinions on the president's constitutional authority to engage the armed forces without a congressional authorization, if you read those opinions, he had ample constitutional authority to take out General Soleimani, if you regard that as an isolated strike. What these OLC opinions say is that the president can take lethal force, so long as it's short of war, if it's in the important national interest. And this -- and this operation was. Now, the question becomes...

CAVUTO: It was, insofar as if they had compelling evidence that he was planning more attacks on...

JOHNSON: If you believe everything our government is telling us, yes. The question now on the table is, where do we go from here? Is this the beginning of a larger-scale war? And this is what has Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans pretty spun up. And, Neil...

CAVUTO: Because Mike Lee did not find that there was compelling evidence, the Republican senator, Rand Paul, about future actions.

JOHNSON: He was pretty upset. I saw that.

CAVUTO: Right.

JOHNSON: I saw that, yes.

CAVUTO: Now, but was that -- do you have to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt?

JOHNSON: Well, Congress is entitled -- it's Congress' prerogative to authorize war. Congress is, therefore, entitled to know what the justification for military force is, even if they don't vote a congressional authorization.

CAVUTO: What about the notion that, if it concerns someone who's a loathsome figure, who has killed a lot of Americans and Iraqis, and that that -- to some Republicans I have talked to, Mr. Secretary, that was justification enough?

JOHNSON: Even if the president had authority, under his commander in chief constitutional authority, to take action, it's incumbent upon the executive branch to brief the congressional branch on what's happening. Bigger picture here, Neil, Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been out of this space for far too long, exercising their war-making prerogatives. Since the 2001 authorization after 9/11...

CAVUTO: Right.

JOHNSON: ... and the 2002 authorization to go into Iraq, Congress has been largely absent from this space. And what has happened in the interim is that the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which is like the Supreme Court of the executive branch, has had to opine on what the president's constitutional authority is to engage the armed forces for lethal force in instances where it's been in our important national interests to do so. And what the OLC has said is, yes, the president has the authority to do this, so long as it does not constitute a full-blown war, because that's Congress' prerogative to declare. Congress now, a lot of Democrats and some Republicans are saying, hey, if you're planning on going to war with the nation of Iran, you have to consult us first. We have to authorize this. That's our prerogative. And that's what's -- that's what you see going on right now.

CAVUTO: Do you find -- there's a lot of Republicans who have said this -- that these same Democrats and some Republicans, but -- are not holding this president to a very different standard than Barack Obama, that Barack Obama did a lot of things like this, and he didn't catch much flak?

JOHNSON: Well...

CAVUTO: The closest example, of course, would be the red line in Syria, where he essentially threw it back to Congress'...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Right?

JOHNSON: Well, you will remember, Neil, that, in 2013, President Obama asked Congress for authority to go to Syria.

CAVUTO: That's right.

JOHNSON: And Congress did not provide that. And so back to the Office of Legal Counsel to figure out whether the president on his own had that authority, and that's exactly what the Trump administration did in 2018, when we...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What about the Usama bin Laden comparison? A bad guy is a bad guy is a bad guy? Better to get rid of the bad guy?

JOHNSON: Well, bin Laden was authorized under the 2001 authorization by Congress.

CAVUTO: Right.

JOHNSON: I know, because I was there as general counsel of the Department of Defense at the time in 2011. So that was -- that strike was part of the overall armed conflict against Al Qaeda.

CAVUTO: Got it.

JOHNSON: And bin Laden was obviously the leader.

CAVUTO: Well, let me ask you, Secretary, as a former homeland security secretary, a lot of people were breathing a sigh of relief after this Iranian response that seemed calibrated not to up the ante here, that that was it, that we don't have anything to worry about right now. What do you think of that?

JOHNSON: I would urge Americans to read some of the statements that my old department, DHS, Homeland Security, has been putting out over the last couple days. They're very straightforward. They're very candid about...

CAVUTO: They're worried. They're worried.

JOHNSON: ... about the threat environment that we're in now. And it's not just physical safety. We have to make sure that we're vigilant when it comes to our cybersecurity. And that goes to...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Do you think that is the next shoe to drop, a cyber type of attack?

JOHNSON: We have to consider cyber-warfare, cybersecurity to be part and parcel of armed conflict these days. And what DHS is telling us and telling critical infrastructure, be prepared, be extra vigilant, test your systems, because we could be in for a bumpy ride.

CAVUTO: All right, Jeh Johnson, I want to thank you very much.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Very good seeing you. He calls it as he sees it, and manages to tick off people in both parties, which is probably a very good sign. Meanwhile, the president is expected to tell the economy in Ohio tonight. Shortly, he will be leaving the White House for a big event here. Sometimes, he speaks to the press. When he does so, if he does, we are there. You are watching "Your World."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, with everything going on, on the Hill, you would think the markets would be kind of anxious. They were not. The Dow, the Nasdaq, the S&P 500 closing at all-time highs, the Dow not far from 29000. Go figure. We will -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, crowds already gathering in the battleground state of Ohio, where the president will be giving his first big rally of the new year. FOX News' Matt Finn is in Toledo with what we can expect. Hey, Matt.

MATT FINN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, well, it's not surprising the president's first rally is here in the critical state of Ohio, which he won in 2016. Here in Toledo, Ohio, we are in Lucas County, which Hillary Clinton actually won in 2016. But we're just south of the Michigan border and Detroit. So the president's campaign is likely hoping to have an impact on voters here in Ohio and then those who might have decided to make the short drive from the -- Detroit or state of Michigan. And as far as the economy goes here in Northwestern Ohio, this is a region of blue-collar workers, hardworking Americans. We talked to some Trump supporters outside who started lining up as early as 5:30 this morning. The majority told us they were feeling good about the economy here in Ohio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Outstanding. The economy is outstanding. Jobs is high, up. Hey, it's going to be a great speech.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When we would get our 401(k) statements when Obama was in office, I was afraid to open them up. Threw them away. Now I'm at 18 percent return.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FINN: Of course, there are protesters here and people who are not welcoming the president also outside. Police tell us they are expecting Black Lives Matter and groups from Planned Parenthood. We have a team out there, and so far they say that the protesters are relatively calm -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Matt Finn, thank you very, very much. And my next guest is saying not so fast when it comes to the president praising the economy, even in that neck of the woods. He's Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper. Mr. Chairman, good to have you.

DAVID PEPPER, CHAIR, OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Thanks for having me.

CAVUTO: Let me ask you a little bit, because the president and his people talk about the big improvements in Ohio. I think unemployment, which was a little over 5 percent when he took office, has been sliced more than a point, and manufacturing activity, even with some of the volatile shifts, is up from what it was when he took office. In other words, things are better in the Buckeye State than when he came into office. You don't agree?

PEPPER: Well, just, obviously, there was a national recovery over the last 10 years. Ohio benefited from that. But if you look at the last year...

CAVUTO: I'm just talking about the last three years.

PEPPER: ... we're seeing -- yes, well, I'm going to talk about -- so, obviously, we had a trajectory for the decade. This -- 2019 will be the first year that Ohio has lost jobs since the Great Recession in 2009. Talk to our soybean farmers. Talk to manufacturers. Talk to workers at Lordstown and other places around the state, we have had large layoffs. Steel is struggling. And a lot of this is just self-inflicted wounds by the president. This crazy trade war that changes by tweet every few weeks is really hurting people in Ohio. And so, yes, we were part of a broad recovery that began in 2010. But the president has come in and his -- between the tax scam that incentivized jobs going elsewhere and this wild trade war, where he's taken away the buyers of Ohio soybeans and driven up prices, a lot of Ohio economy suffers. If you want to really do damage to the Ohio economy, you go after manufacturing, you go after farmers. And that's exactly what the president's policies have done. So, again, we're about to see our first year of loss of jobs since 2009, and for no reason whatsoever, except the self-inflicted wounds from Washington.

CAVUTO: But net-net, you're still up jobs. Net-net, the unemployment rate is lower than it was when he took office. Without playing politics with this, sir, I guess...

(CROSSTALK)

PEPPER: Yes, but -- and the growth rate...

CAVUTO: I just want to ask you this.

PEPPER: Yes.

CAVUTO: I understand, if the last year, there was a slowdown in manufacturing...

PEPPER: Right.

CAVUTO: And that bears itself out in some of the data. But, net-net, it's still up. So I guess what I'm going to ask you is, do Ohioans, especially farmers, look at the deal that will be signed next week with China and the deal we have with the Mexicans and the Canadians as changing that, and the president will be responsible for that?

PEPPER: I mean, farmers would love to see some stability in the crazy trade policies we have seen. But I can -- all I can tell you is, we were -- I was at a town hall meeting with fourth- and fifth-generation soybean farmers and dairy farmers a few months ago before our debate. And they basically said, they believe their customers are gone, that China is now buying soybeans from Russia and South America. And it's not as if they're just going to shift back and come back to all the Ohio farmers. Obviously, I hope that's not the case. But what they said to us is, they worry their customers have basically gone somewhere else because of this trade war, and won't come back. And when you're living year to year as a farmer, that's a terrible thing to think about. Hopefully, there is good news. Every week, we hear about a new trade deal with China, but it never seems to happen. But, no, these farmers are concerned they have lost their customers for good.

CAVUTO: All right.

PEPPER: And that's why we're seeing bankruptcies in here and Wisconsin. And, obviously, manufacturing has been hurt a lot by this trade war as well.

CAVUTO: All right, well, we have a deal to be signed next week. We will see what happens. It's very good having you. Thank you for taking the time, Mr. Pepper.

PEPPER: Thank you, Neil. Appreciate it.

CAVUTO: Well, do you think the president will be talking about impeachment tonight? Well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was certainly all over that today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Are you willing to hold onto the articles indefinitely?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): No, I'm not holding indefinitely. I will send them over when I'm ready. And that will probably be soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: How soon is soon? My dad used to do that. Are we there yet, dad? Soon.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Anyway, the read on all this from Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics. So, Tom, how soon is soon? What do you think?

TOM BEVAN, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM: We don't know. It could be as early as later today or tomorrow, or it could be later on in the week. But that's up to Nancy Pelosi. But, clearly, she's getting ready and she's feeling pressure from fellow Democrats in the House and in the Senate. And I think she's -- I think she's ready to -- getting ready to send them over.

CAVUTO: Yes, among them, Blumenthal of Connecticut, Feinstein of -- certainly of California, Joe Manchin saying that in West Virginia. So she is feeling the pressure. I'm just wondering, though, her strategy is what? Is it just to show, all right, this process in the Senate is very, very spotty? But I'm wondering if she's helping her cause, when Republicans can come back and say, well, you're withholding your constitutional duty to get this into the Senate, hurts her?

BEVAN: Yes, I mean, I have really never understood the strategy from the beginning of what the benefit to Democrats would be. And, really, we haven't really seen this. I mean, theoretically, she had leverage over the Senate, but that didn't really work out. And so the only thing that has really happened over the last couple weeks is that it's sort of -- it's undermined the House Democrats' case that impeachment was such an urgent nature, they needed to get it done, they needed to move quickly because it was protecting our democracy. And then they sort of hit the pause button on it. So I'm not sure what Democrats have gained, and it seems that they have lost or least undermined that argument to a certain degree.

CAVUTO: When it gets to the Senate or whenever soon is, to your point, I'm wondering how far they pursue this potential witness thing, where John Bolton, of course, is that, if subpoenaed, he would testify. There are other names that are mentioned. All you need is about four Republicans to go along with that, assuming all 47 Democrats push the issue, and then you will have witnesses. Now, there are three that we know of. Do you think the votes are there to kind of force the issue for Mitch McConnell?

BEVAN: Yes, that's a great question. I mean, it is pretty tight. But we have a couple Republicans who may vote in favor of that. But, other than that, I haven't seen anybody. It doesn't seem like there's a huge push to have a bunch of witnesses. We may have a couple. But we will have to wait and see who those are and how that plays out. By and large, I think Republicans and Democrats, quite frankly, especially folks like Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren, are going to want to get this thing over, and Amy Klobuchar as well. Get this over in sort of a pretty quick pace, so they can get back out on the campaign trail. And, obviously, Republicans can get back to doing -- doing their business.

CAVUTO: Yes, that's what they mean by soon, like real soon. All right, Tom, thank you very, very much. With all of this, and questioning the president's war powers and what he can do and what he can't do, and the timing of impeachment and all of that, and then this plane crash and who was responsible for it and whether the Iranians screwed up, you would think the markets would be at least tense. What if I told you wrong times three? Three major records -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, how's this? Across the board for the Dow, very close to 29000. We last reached 28000 little more than a month or so ago. All the major averages, including the Dow, in record territory, which seems weird when you think about it, but not when you talk to Gary Kaltbaum, who can remember when the Dow was at 2, just 2, just 2.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Gary, good to see you.

GARY KALTBAUM, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: No.

CAVUTO: What's going on here?

KALTBAUM: Neil, October 3 to the 8th, when they leaked and then confirmed massive liquidity, combined with all the cash on the sideline, combined with the seasonality, combined with maybe taking the China thing off the table, you see what you're seeing. You have a melt-up. We thought there was a chance for a good run into the end of the year. It is continuing. And, Neil, the story's not the Dow. The story is the Nasdaq, where I live.

CAVUTO: Right.

KALTBAUM: And I can tell you, technology is just insanely on fire right now. And I'm just hoping, give me another month of this, and I can quit for the rest of the year.

CAVUTO: You know you call it a melt-up. And I get that. And people who have -- when they see the market dip a little bit, as it did on the first reports, where the futures fell about 400 points, when we first took outside Soleimani, you always think that I got to get out, I got to get out. But every time someone has done that, there have been many, many more who regretted it. And I'm wondering whether there's any stopping that. I mean, I know the backdrop is favorable, the earnings and all of that, that you remind me about, but this is, like, incredible.

KALTBAUM: All I can tell you is, in the markets, there's fear and greed. We have greed now. Momentum is picking up. And I just don't think you fight it. And you know you're wrong when you sell, and your stock goes up another 5 percent.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

KALTBAUM: And that's what you're basically seeing right now. And, look, let me be clear, we are going to get pullback soon. It's getting frothy. Everybody's getting on the bullish side that used to be bearish. I just think there's going to be more to go. And, by the way, the 30000 number is only 3.5 percent away now. I suspect we're going to get through that over time, if not more this year, in an election year, because easy money combined with a good economy, combined with -- I do believe earnings are accelerating. I think there's more to go.

CAVUTO: You know, a lot of people talk about those earnings. And a lot of people talk of the prospect of rates staying low and that, when they factor all that in, it's not an expensive market or absurdly expensive market. What do you think?

KALTBAUM: It's not 1999, but it's on the upper reaches here. But I can tell you, I have studied the markets going back since day one. Expensive can become more expensive, and bull markets can last a lot longer than anybody can believe they will last. And all I can tell you, I walk in every day looking for selling by the big money crowd. And they're just not selling and they just continue to bid things up. And I will tell you, in the last week, just a ton of technology names are popping out on my screens, and that's good news going forward.

CAVUTO: Yes, look at Apple again today and Amazon, all these other guys.

KALTBAUM: Amazing.

CAVUTO: I mean, they're just continuing what they were doing. All right, thank you, my friend. You don't seem that old, but keep at it, Gary.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: All right. In the meantime, back to her majesty's kingdom and a messier item that Brexit itself -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Bloody hell. It's the news that shocked the world, the queen herself, according to reports. Prince Harry, Meghan Markle trading in life under the crown for life as commoners. How exactly would that work? FOX News Headlines 24/7's Carley Shimkus joins me right now.

CARLEY SHIMKUS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Oh, boy.

CAVUTO: Carley, this is all the buzz now over there, huh?

SHIMKUS: Yes, it certainly is, and over here too. There are new reports that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle did talk to the queen after they got back from their Canadian vacation, but she had no idea that they were going to basically pull the trigger, launch this Web site that details how they plan to live their life and announce that they're going to step back from their royal duties. So that apparently came as a big surprise to her. And she has now issued royal aides to figure out a plan of action and a workable solution, because there are still so many unanswered questions about how this whole thing is going to work, like where they're going to live, how they're going to fund their lifestyle, and if they're going to be able to keep their titles.

CAVUTO: Now, Carley, I understand that this really started with her, that she wants back in North America. I think she's Canadian originally, right? Do we know where they want to live or where they want to have a second home, or what?

SHIMKUS: Well, it is interesting, because, in their statement, they said North America, so that obviously does include Canada. And all signs right now are pointing to that. But I thought that was pretty surprising, because her mom lives in California, and that's where she grew up. So it could be one or the other. But I think that the way that they're going to fund their lifestyle is pretty interesting, too, because right now, they receive 5 percent of their income through the Sovereign Fund, which is basically U.K. taxpayer money; 95 percent of their money comes from Prince Charles. Basically, dad is giving them money to live. They say that they're going to give up the 5 percent, but keep the 95 percent, also live at Frogmore Cottage, and taxpayer money to fund their security. So that doesn't really sound like financial independence to me,

CAVUTO: Yes, sure.

SHIMKUS: And I think there's going to be a bit of a wrangle on how this whole thing is going to work out.

CAVUTO: Don't let go of Frogmore, whatever that is. Sounds like a Harry Potter thing.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: All right, we will see where this goes. Great reporting, as always. Carly doesn't sleep, but she's on like 4:00 in the morning when I'm watching her. And she's still the best.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: In the meantime, maybe Harry and Meghan can find some work here. We're all over that with the latest jobs report, "Coast to Coast," coming up 12 noon on FOX Business Network. We sort it out. We can help you, Harry and Meghan.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.