This is a rush transcript from "Your World," September 17, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: President Trump in California this hour for some fund-raisers, but Iran still fresh on his mind, and the possible meeting with Iran's president.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

Secretary of State Pompeo is heading to Saudi Arabia today, as the White House says evidence clearly points Iran as the likely culprits in that drone attack on Saudi oil facilities. Iran continues to deny it.

Oil prices, which surged 15 percent after the attack yesterday, dropping more than 5 percent today. The big question now is, how should the United States respond?

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on that in just a moment, but first John Roberts at the White House with the very latest -- John.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Charles, good afternoon to you.

And one of the reasons why those oil prices are coming down is because the Saudi oil minister today said that 50 percent of the production that was taken offline by the attacks has been restored and that the oil facilities will be back up to full production by the end of this month, and already export levels are already back to where they were prior to the attack.

Now, U.S. and Saudi teams are on the ground at the two oil-producing facilities collecting pieces of the missiles that were involved in the attack U.S. officials tell FOX News there is high confidence that the cruise missiles and drones were launched from Southwest Iran and not Yemen, as Iran has claimed.

President Trump still has not definitively declared that Iran was behind the attacks. But speaking at the Heritage Foundation this morning, the vice president, Mike Pence, mirroring the president's tough talk over the weekend. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT: As the president said, we don't want war with anybody.

But the United States is prepared. We're locked and loaded. And we're ready to defend our interests and our allies in the region, make no mistake about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: As you said at the top, Charles, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, will be in Saudi Arabia tomorrow for discussions with Saudi officials.

They will likely go over the evidence that has been collected at the oil facilities and determine what steps will come next.

President Trump yesterday suggested that any military action would be proportional, likely targeting a similar Iranian oil facility. Iran has been warning about any attack, saying that there are several U.S. military bases that are within range of their intermediate-range missiles. That would be to a range of about 1,300 miles.

President Trump still has not ruled out meeting with the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, though it does appear unlikely.

Aboard Air Force One, speaking with the press corps, the president said: "I never rule anything out, but I prefer not meeting him" -- Charles.

PAYNE: John Roberts, thank you very much.

So, when it comes to Iran, how should the United States proceed?

With me now, Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. He is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, thanks for joining us.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Thanks for having me.

PAYNE: So, a lot of controversy in the Republican circles -- not controversy, but certainly debate, if you will, on whether or not this rises to the threshold for American military involvement.

What are your thoughts?

PAUL: Well, I think it's always important to keep the Constitution in mind.

The Constitution says that war is declared by Congress, not by the president. So, really, any kind of military action where we would bomb or target targets in a foreign land would have to be approved by Congress in advance. They don't just happen.

Presidents can respond in self-defense, but we're talking about days to weeks later. And this wasn't an attack really on the U.S., remember. It was an attack on Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is saying that the weapons are Iranian. And I really trust that that probably is going to be true. But the question of where the attack came from, whether it came from Iran or whether it came from Iraq or it came from Yemen, I don't think I have seen incontrovertible evidence yet.

People are leaning one way or the other. But, really, I think there needs to be a thorough investigation of this. And if the U.S. is going to ally with Saudi Arabia and join a war with Iran, that's a big step.

And Congress needs to debate this. And Congress needs to decide whether or not we're going to be at war with Iran or not.

PAYNE: And, with all due respect, I think most of our viewers agree with the idea that this is all covered in the Constitution.

And yet, in practice, presidents have OKed the kind of actions that Vice President Pence just described, a surgical, precise retaliatory attack, not on the Iranian people or Iran itself, but certainly facilities that would sort of counterbalance the damage that was done over the weekend.

You would be opposed to that?

PAUL: I would be always in favor of adhering to the Constitution. I took an oath to the Constitution, and the oath very specific. The Constitution is very specific.

In fact, Madison, when describing the Constitution, said that, with very studied care, we took that power because the executive branch was most prone to war, and we vested that power in the legislature.

All of the founding fathers were very, very clear. The Federalist Papers are very, very clear. The president doesn't get to declare a war. Whether it's a president I like or one I don't like from my party or another party, the power to go to war is vested in Congress.

And I will adhere to that and fight for that principle.

PAYNE: If we were to go through the appropriate process, however, and it was proven that these were Iranian weapons launched in the country of Iran, and that there needed to be some sort of pushback against an ever more belligerent, provocative Iran, would you would be willing to say, OK, in this particular case, we need to send a message?

PAUL: Well, one, I would need to know more evidence about exactly where the weapons were launched from. And we need to have a debate over that and look at the intelligence.

But, two, we have to ask a question. There's a war going on in Yemen. The war is a war between Saudi Arabia and her allies on one side of Yemen, and then the Houthis and their Iranian allies on the other. There's been atrocities committed on both sides. There are -- it's a humanitarian nightmare.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: And these attacks on Saudi Arabia are a response to Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen. They are also attacks that...

PAYNE: But you're not justifying the attacks, though, are you, sir?

PAUL: No, not at all.

But I would say that this is a war going on in Yemen. It's a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is not necessarily the U.S. involved in the Yemen war. In fact, our involvement should be trying to get both sides to the table.

And I'm the first to admit that Iran is making this very, very difficult. I have been a proponent of diplomacy, but Iran escalating this in this fashion, even if it's only Iranian weapons used by somebody else, Iran is still allowing these weapons to get into the hands of people who are now attacking Saudi Arabia outright.

Yes, it's become very, very difficult to find a peaceful solution. But it doesn't always mean that it's the U.S. that has to get involved, that the U.S. has to be bombing other countries.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: This is a fight right now. Iran, if they did, has attacked Saudi Arabia. No one has attacked the United States.

PAYNE: And to that point, should Saudi Arabia be at the forefront of this? Many Americans are sitting back and wondering, you know, a lot of our allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, sort of kind of kick back and wait.

I saw where you were pretty enthusiastic about an article that talked about $3.6 trillion that we have sunk into the Middle East; 2,300 Americans have died in Afghanistan, 4,488 in Iraq -- in Iraq.

And you see -- many people seem to share that with you, and that, maybe, if there's going to be a military confrontation, Saudi Arabia should lead that.

PAUL: Well, yes, I think this is a Saudi Arabia vs. Iran battle right now. It's a proxy war in Yemen. And now this is -- if Iran did launch this, it's a launch of Iran against Saudi Arabia.

It's a disaster. I mean, it's terrible. It's -- it's making it almost impossible to find a diplomatic solution.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: And, yes, Iran -- Iran is at fault. If these are Iranian weapons, whether they came from Iran or another country, Iran is allowing an escalation of this. And it is a big, big mistake.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: There are billions of dollars worth of weapons there.

And, as much as Iran is a menace, Saudi Arabia's got $83 billion worth of weapons they purchase every year. And Saudi Arabia has been bombing civilians in Yemen. So one is linked to the other.

But Iran is making it impossible to try to find a peaceful solution to this. I have been one for diplomacy. I have been one for talking to Iran.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: But if it turns out Iran is behind this, it makes it virtually impossible to continue to have diplomacy.

So Iran needs to get a message here.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: And it's going to be a real problem. And they're not making things better for themselves.

PAYNE: Sir, I have just got 30 seconds, but I do have to ask, are you OK with the term locked and loaded?

Representative Ilhan Omar saying that it's actually President Trump who's pushing the idea of war.

PAUL: No, actually, I think President Trump's remarks have actually been tempered some in the last couple of days. He specifically said that Saudi Arabia will not direct our foreign policy. And I think that's an important statement for him to make.

The other thing is, is that members of Congress like myself, I think, need to come forward and say that this is Congress' role. The Constitution very clearly gives the right to declare war to us.

PAYNE: Right.

PAUL: And that's because the founders wanted the people to be involved. They wanted the people's representatives. They did not want to make it easy to go to war.

PAYNE: Senator Rand Paul, we always appreciate it. Thank you very much.

PAUL: Thank you.

PAYNE: You're looking live, folks, right now, Capitol Hill, Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee grilling former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski today, pushing for impeachment of the president.

My next guest says, cool it. And get this. He's a Democrat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: I think we should call this what it is, an absolute cover-up by the White House.

REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: We will continue with rerun season. Popcorn still tastes good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, D-TX: What does the president do? He calls you in to do what everyone else wouldn't do. He called you in to do his dirty work in secret, because he knew it was wrong.

Well, we will expose the truth. The president cannot hide behind you any longer. And you should be here to be telling the truth, Mr. Lewandowski, because the truth will set you free and the American people.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON LEE: I yield back.

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: The time of the gentlelady has expired. The witness may answer the question.

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I don't believe there was a question, Congressman.

NADLER: Very well.

JACKSON LEE: Yes, there was.

LEWANDOWSKI: Could you repeat the question? I didn't hear it.

JACKSON LEE: I would be happy to repeat the question.

LEWANDOWSKI: It was just a rant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: And that was the nice stuff.

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski getting grilled by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee as they try and build the case for impeaching President Trump.

My next guest is a Democrat, and he says his party needs to move on from the impeachment push.

New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Brindisi joins us now.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI, D-N.Y.: Thank you, Charles, for having me.

PAYNE: You know, as you say this, and as we have sort of heard similar sentiment from older or more established leaders within your party, it feels like the number, the head count for those who want impeachment continues to climb.

BRINDISI: Well, it looks like that.

But I would say that I have had several conversations with many new members, many freshman Democrats like myself. And the thing that we hear mostly when we're back home in our districts is not overwhelming calls for impeachment.

What we're hearing about are prescription drug costs, what are we doing to lower drug costs or build our infrastructure or health care costs or the opioid crisis. And that that's really where the focus, I think, has to be in terms of where we go as a House of Representatives.

And it's what I'm working on right now.

PAYNE: Congressman, first, it was Russia, and then it was something else, and then it was racism. More recently, it was U.S. Air Force planes landing in Scotland.

It seems like a desperate, very desperate attempt, and no longer driven by necessarily congressional responsibility, but personal animus.

When you speak to your Democratic colleagues that support this, why don't they get that?

BRINDISI: Well, I think everyone goes home, and they have different constituencies in their district. And they're responding to constituencies back home.

But I can say that, when I'm home, what I hear are the same things that helped me get elected to Congress, and what I want to focus on as I govern here right now.

Just this week, I'm talking to folks back in the district about their prescription drug costs, how much it costs for their insulin or other lifesaving medications.

And when they tune on the TV, they're not seeing the work we're doing on them. What they're seeing is us being all consumed with investigations. And, eventually, we have to get some things done for the American people. That's what I'm focused on doing right now.

PAYNE: Right.

BRINDISI: And I don't care if it's working with Democrats and Republicans. We got to work together.

PAYNE: Well, you talk about turning on the TV.

When you turn on the TV today, you saw what The Hill just said was "Lewandowski Hearing Descends Into Chaos." And the sound bite we used coming into this segment, I don't see how it helps anyone.

BRINDISI: Well, I don't have the pleasure of sitting on the Judiciary Committee. So I haven't seen the hearings yet, but I'm looking forward to watching them tonight and seeing what happened.

But I got to say, if I'm sitting home, someone living on a fixed income, someone who's struggling right now to pay for their health insurance costs, it's a big concern.

It looks like, again, business as usual here in Washington, Democrats and Republicans fighting, no one getting along, nothing getting done.

PAYNE: Right.

BRINDISI: And that's what we have to focus on. How do we work together to get things done? That's what the American people want. It's what I hear every time I'm back home in the district.

PAYNE: As a freshman lawmaker, are you surprised at how much power your fellow freshman lawmakers seem to be wielding these days, to the point where Nancy Pelosi at times seems to be unable to control the party or at least the messaging?

BRINDISI: Well, I would say that everyone has to kind of take a step back and look at why they're here, what we're working on, not always try to be quick to get the latest tweet, retweet or whatever it is that they're trying to get attention for.

What I think we should be getting attention for these days are the work we're doing on our committees on a bipartisan basis.

For example, I'm on the Veterans Affairs committee.

PAYNE: Right.

BRINDISI: Last week, we passed 18 bills, bipartisan bills, through the Veterans Affairs Committee. And we don't get attention for that because all the attention is focused on impeachment.

Let's see how we can get some things done over the next year going into the election. There's plenty of time for elections, but we got to govern eventually.

PAYNE: That's very refreshing. And we appreciate you sharing that with us.

Congressman, thank you very much.

BRINDISI: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: Well, the White House instructing two former advisers, Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter,to skip the hearings, citing constitutional immunity.

Here's House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on that today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NADLER: According to DOJ opinions, absolute immunity applies to -- quote - - "the president's immediate advisers who serve as the president's alter ego" -- close quote.

I think we should call this what it is, an absolute cover-up by the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: So what's the deal here?

All rise. Judge Andrew Napolitano joins us.

So, Judge, what do you think?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, there is no such thing as constitutional monarchy.

The president has immunity in conversations that he has with his most senior aides about military, diplomatic and sensitive national security matters.

However, I don't blame the White House and I don't blame the DOJ for trying to frustrate the investigation of the president, because we don't know what that investigation is.

Stated differently, if the Congress decides they want to impeach the president, there are no privileges. Until they do that, they're going to get this resistance. There's absolutely no obstacle to Congress getting its hands on whatever it wants from the president once it decides to impeach.

But as Congressman Brindisi nicely pointed out, the Democrats are schizophrenic on this. Ms. Pelosi doesn't want it to happen because she knows it's going to be a backlash. She's got 50 or 60 hard-core lefties who hate the president, who have districts where they want them to do it.

She's trying to walk that narrow line. It doesn't work.

PAYNE: The -- although the term may not be official, have other presidents been able to cite something similar with respect to pushing back on these...

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: Yes, but no president has been in this situation.

And in fairness to President Trump, he doesn't know, because the House hasn't told him, if this is an impeachment inquiry or not. Jerry Nadler can say what he wants, but until there is some official vote...

PAYNE: It feels like a fishing expedition at the worst.

NAPOLITANO: Yes. Yes. And he can and ought to resist a fishing expedition.

But an impeachment inquiry, he may not resist, because the Congress' power under the Constitution is absolute. There are no privileges for the president, once they decide to impeach. Anybody they call up there has to answer.

PAYNE: Beyond political ramifications, are there legal consequences for Congress saying, the Democrats saying, OK, we're going to go down this path of impeachment, and, again, they come up with a dry hole that yields nothing?

NAPOLITANO: Well...

PAYNE: Because you wonder about abuse of power.

NAPOLITANO: The consequences, Charles, are political, not legal.

The consequences would be, theoretically, they would be voted out of office for not doing anything to address the federal issues that they're supposed to address.

But there are no -- there are no legal consequences to this at all. It's just -- it's just political. Impeachment is largely political. Impeachment is whatever the Congress says it is.

PAYNE: Right.

What do you make of the Lewandowski hearings today? Obviously, it was just -- it was explosive. But I don't know what we got out of it, as a public.

NAPOLITANO: I don't think we got anything out of it.

And if Congressman Nadler asked for my advice -- he's not going to ask for it, but I will tell him anyway. He should hire a professional cross- examiner to examine these witnesses.

Lewandowski was correct. The congresswoman's statement was not a question. It was a rant. That is a waste of time. Everybody knows what they think. You want to have a question, get Mike Chertoff or somebody that's a real cross-examiner to ask the questions for you, and then you will start getting answers.

PAYNE: Did you see his, I want to say confrontation with Representative Jeffries? Just it was -- it was -- it was really just harsh. It was demeaning. It was really...

NAPOLITANO: Yes.

PAYNE: It's hard to believe these are elected officials.

NAPOLITANO: It's inappropriate in the House of Representatives.

PAYNE: Right.

NAPOLITANO: It's inappropriate in Congress, inappropriate in the government.

I mean, I have seen that in a courtroom. But these are not government officials speaking like that. Government officials should hire a professional cross-examiner, there will be the right questions, and hopefully truthful answers.

PAYNE: All right, Judge, always appreciate it.

NAPOLITANO: But they won't do it.

PAYNE: They won't.

NAPOLITANO: Because they each want their 15 seconds on the news.

PAYNE: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: That will end up on a Web site later on, in a fund-raising event.

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely.

PAYNE: Judge, thank you very much.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome, Charles.

PAYNE: Well, President Trump wants the Fed the play its hand with a big rate cut -- why that might not be in the cards.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Let's cut to the chase.

The Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates tomorrow, but probably not the big cut President Trump is looking for. And maybe, maybe that's because we might be seeing progress on the trade front with China.

Let's get the read with market watcher Monica Mehta.

Monica, it's not just the better tone with China, but the economic data out recently has been phenomenal, today, industrial production 200 percent better than Wall Street expected, homebuilder ]sentiment higher, overall sentiment turning around, retail sales through the roof.

We're -- we have got a pretty strong economy.

MONICA MEHTA, FINANCE EXPERT: We have a pretty strong economy, but I still think you're getting a cut. I still think you're getting a pretty good cut. And I think you're about to see quantitative easing part four just around the corner.

PAYNE: All right, so for the audience, that's essentially Fed money printing, which is a program that was brought into for -- after the Great Recession. Jay Powell has said that, takes credit for that saving our economy.

But that was then. Why would we need it now?

MEHTA: Well, it's not because there's a meltdown happening like what we saw 10 or 11 years ago.

I think that there was some really unusual activity today in the markets. Our monetary system is so complex. And all behind-the-scenes work, we usually never even notice it, it's flawless.

But, today, the Fed actually had to intervene and pump in about $65 billion into the system, so banks could clear trades. And, again, it's not because there's a meltdown happening or something very unusual happening. It's really because it indicates that there really isn't enough cash in the system.

And that's -- the Fed's been pulling back on quantitative easing for sometime now, pulling money out of the system. I think you're about to see that reverse.

PAYNE: President Trump has been very critical of the Fed not just cutting -- hiking rates, rather, but, to your point, pulling billions of dollars out of this system.

And it seems to have slowed certainly the recovery down. It seems to have slowed our economy down. And now you have in Europe, where they're doing the exact opposite. We have Mario Draghi saying negative interest rates are great, and that they're going to continue. They're going to pump in billions of dollars into their economy.

Could Jay Powell be swayed by that?

MEHTA: Yes, I mean, we're still the brightest star on the block.

And when you look around the world and you think about where you want to invest, the U.S. is still the safest place. The dollar is very strong. But I think that you are going to see the Fed ease up and put more money back into the system. They may have pulled back too hard.

And it really is a testament to how resilient our economy is that, despite raising rates, despite pulling cash out of the system, we have been very strong. And that's something to not gloss over.

PAYNE: Right.

I have just got 30 seconds, but it sounds like you're saying we're going to get a 50-basis-point cut tomorrow, the big one that President Trump's looking for.

MEHTA: Well, at least a quarter, so, at least a quarter.

PAYNE: No, no, no.

(LAUGHTER)

MEHTA: But I -- am I hedging too much?

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: Yes, you are.

Monica, I got to tell you, though, that was the best explanation for the emergency action that the Fed had to take today that I heard all day. Thank you so much for your expertise. Always appreciate it.

MEHTA: Thank you. Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: So, from New Mexico to California, President Trump turning to the path of most resistance ahead of 2020. Is this all about winning the popular vote?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: The CDC activating its emergency operations center for vaping- related illness, as a seventh person dies from severe lung disease linked to e-cigarettes. The crisis continues to build.

We're right back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: President Trump fund-raising in California fresh off that rally in New Mexico last night.

So why is he setting his sights on deep blue states? Is this all about winning the popular vote in 2020?

With me now to discuss, Democratic strategist Laura Fink, American Majority leader, CEO Ned Ryun, and Washington Examiner's Kelly Jane Torrance.

Ned, I got to start with you, because I think President Trump has a shot in New Mexico.

NED RYUN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MAJORITY: I do.

PAYNE: Hillary Clinton did not get 50 percent of the vote. And you can see how it's dropped precipitously since the first time Obama ran there, California, maybe a different question.

RYUN: Well, I think there's a couple reasons he's going to do this and go to -- he's in California, Charles.

First of all, $15 million is a really good reason to go. And that's what he is hoping to raise out there. But this whole issue of the popular vote, we have to remember Republicans have only won two of the last eight popular votes.

And I think this has been a sticking point with Trump. People have tried to delegitimize his 2016 win by saying, well, he didn't win the popular vote, which is, of course, absurd. And I think he wants to make 2020 definitive. He wants to expand on his Electoral College both. That's why it was in New Mexico. And he wants to win the popular vote.

But I would also add this, Charles. If he wants to help the GOP win the House back -- the GOP lost four House seats in 2018 in Orange County alone. And if he wants to end the stupidity that we saw today with the Lewandowski hearing, then this collusion and impeachment forever with the Democratic House, he has to help Republicans win the House back in 2020.

And for that to happen in California, he has to be present. He has to have a presence for them to be able to win those seats. And I think that's why he's there.

PAYNE: Great point.

And, of course, recently, he's had the magic touch in very tight races. Many give him the credit for pulling the Republican candidate over the top.

Laura, what do you make, though, of President Trump? It's not just New Mexico, but he's been in several states that he did not win last time. And his campaign seems to be very confident that he can win them this time around.

LAURA FINK, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I tell you one thing. He better worry about that Electoral College vote, because his popularity is declining.

By coming to California, it is correct, he's going to vacuum up $15 million, get that payback for the tax cuts from the wealthy donors that he gave them to. And then he does have to worry about those seats. It was seven seats that Republican loss -- Republicans lost, over half their delegation, clean sweep for Democrats in Orange County.

They proceeded through California with Serena Williams-like dominance. And in order to win back the House, which is a long shot at best, they are going to have to be competitive, but be careful, because, in California, it is deeply blue.

And every time Trump comes here, it energizes the Democratic base, driving them to turn out, and driving them to resist his presidency, as they have done from the beginning.

PAYNE: Kelly Jane?

KELLY JANE TORRANCE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes.

You know, when I went to The L.A. Times to see what they were reporting about Trump's trip to California, the lead stories were all about the protesters who had assembled to meet him, yes.

But I think California, I mean, he lost there by over four million votes. That's -- that's more than the three million nearly in total that he lost by to Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.

There are other states, though, where he can do it. I mean, New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton only won by less than 3,000 votes. Nevada, Maine, about 20,000 votes. Those, I think, possibly winnable, California not so much.

But it is interesting what he's doing in California. He actually sent some officials there ahead of him that talked to state and city officials and homeless reps about the homelessness problem in California.

And it was something he was asked about today on Air Force One on his way to California. And he said he's been talking to Ben Carson, HUD secretary, about it, and they plan to do something about it.

And what's interesting is, he mentioned that a lot of people, even foreigners, move to San Francisco, move to Los Angeles, because they want a better life there, and then they're finding that these homeless in camps with tents are making it difficult.

And I wonder if that was a play for some more donor money right before he goes, but I think Ben Carson is not looking for donor money, and he is going to look into that problem.

PAYNE: Yes, listen, I understand we're a very skeptical nation these days. But that homelessness, the crisis in California is an ugly problem that I hope the White House does get more involved in.

The other pushback, Ned, is Hollywood, and Hollywood taking this on. It's so interesting, because at least once a year, we get this sort of McCarthy -- McCarthy movie out of Hollywood at least once a year. But now they're sort of taking on the spirit of Senator McCarthy with lists of donors, and they want to go after them and make their names public.

What do you make of all of that?

RYUN: Well, I have to say that it is amazing how puritanical and McCarthyism is alive and well in the Democratic Party and the left.

I will say this. I think the cherry on top of the sundae for Donald Trump is that he gets to go into the backyard of these Hollywood weenies and hold a fund-raiser in their backyard. It's going to blow Debra Messing's his mind and Eric McCormack and Rob Reiner, all of these people.

But I think that's also a little bit extra for Trump to be out there, to be able to rub it in their face and say, I'm here, I'm raising money.

And I will say this, Charles. Just to clarify, I don't think Trump has to try and compete in all of California to win more votes for the popular vote. He's got to play in Southern California.

PAYNE: Sure. You're just -- you're talking Orange County and other places, right.

RYUN: And he's got to play in Bakersfield. He's got to play in Bakersfield in California 21.

PAYNE: OK.

Thirty second, Laura. Kelly Jane brought up some of these other states where Democrats may be vulnerable. Is that legitimate?

FINK: Look, I think that there are a lot of states in play. But I ultimately think that Donald Trump won a very narrow election in a handful of states, all of which he's suffering in.

So he might have to expand the map, because Pennsylvania is not looking really good right now. Wisconsin isn't looking good right now. Minnesota certainly isn't looking good right now.

I mean, so he's going to have to look across the map to try to pull off a victory here because his popularity is declining. There's a shaky economy on the horizon. Americans aren't confident for the first time. For the first time, they are not confident in his ability to handle the economy.

And more Americans believe that he's doing a disservice to the economy than believe that he is strengthening it. That's a Quinnipiac poll just out this week. So he really to dig himself out of a hole here.

PAYNE: I will say, there's a major difference between polls and the data that I look at every single day.

RYUN: That's right.

PAYNE: And those numbers are through the roof. People may have anxieties, but, right now, we're doing pretty good.

You guys were a fantastic panel. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

TORRANCE: Thanks, Charles.

RYUN: Thanks, Charles.

PAYNE: In the meantime, new accusations and new calls for impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So where will that fight go?

A member of the House Judiciary Committee next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PAYNE: 2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris joining the calls to investigate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as freshman Democrat Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley actually pushes for his impeachment over new sexual misconduct allegations.

But the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, says he's not going anywhere. He's not going to go there, certainly.

To a Republican on that committee, Florida Congressman Greg Steube.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

I was shocked to read this morning that Jerry Nadler wanted no part of this. I mean, we're talking Jerry impeachment Nadler here. Does that just underscore how farfetched this has become?

REP. GREG STEUBE, R-FLA.: Well, I think what was interesting was his quote was -- said, we're too busy trying to impeach the president or dealing with impeachment of the president to be focused on that right now.

It's just sad that we have gotten to a place in American politics where people can just make an accusation with no basis, no evidence, no facts to back it up, and then, suddenly, it becomes a narrative to the point where The New York Times is retracting their story, and the justice doesn't even have the opportunity for due process to defend himself.

The witness that apparently this happened to is saying that she doesn't remember it happening. The other people that were there says they don't remember it happening. So there's absolutely no evidence to back this up.

Yet here we are talking about Justice Kavanaugh again and slandering a good justice's name.

PAYNE: Well, yesterday morning, on Axios, there was a description of the Democratic strategy for 2020, which said the idea would be to create villains of President Trump, Mitch McConnell and Brett Kavanaugh.

So, I mean, maybe there's not a coincidence that this faulty story was published in the first place.

STEUBE: The Democrats want to do anything they can now to undermine the Supreme Court. And so, by doing this, they're creating this narrative to undermine anything and everything that he does.

Even Ford's own attorney talked about that this was purely political and he would have an asterisk behind his name for the rest of his career. And that's now what they're trying to do. They're trying to politicize the court by politicizing Trump's nominee.

And Americans should just -- should just not stand for it. And I hope that they don't.

PAYNE: Are you surprised, though, at how quickly a lot of politicians, mostly Democrats, seized on this New York Times story so swiftly, without any vetting of their own, to even come up with the idea of impeachment?

STEUBE: Well, it's just how they have seized on the narrative of collusion with Russia and the Trump campaign.

I'm sitting in a Judiciary Committee hearing right now. And that's what we're -- we're talking about. So, for two years, we dealt with this next from the mainstream media and the left that there was this collusion with the Trump campaign. And after 22 months of investigation, oh, find out there is no collusion whatsoever and no evidence of collusion.

So any time they have anything that they can make people look negative that are conservatives, they're going to take that opportunity to do it. And I hope that the American people can see through that.

PAYNE: And, again, you're referring to Trump aid, former Trump aid, Corey Lewandowski, who did face your committee today.

What we saw -- of course, he's the first witness in the Democrats' impeachment probe. To your point, you were there. I'm reading headlines out of this, and it's like the hearing descends into chaos and the personal, vitriolic attacks, very little questioning.

The American public, is it OK for us to see -- I mean, I know about the sausage-making, but this seems to be something entirely different.

STEUBE: You have chairmen of the Judiciary Committee not following their own rules. You have them making their own rules and not following it.

You have the -- such a lack of decorum, where members of Congress are calling the witness a chicken, despite the fact that he showed up here voluntarily. And then after he agreed to show up here voluntarily, he was subpoenaed by the chair.

So it's just -- I think people are sick and tired of these political games. They're sick and tired of these narratives. They know that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the Democrats have no other thing that they can talk about, because they don't want to talk about their policy narratives.

They don't want to talk about the Green New Deal and Medicare for all, because they know the American people don't support that.

PAYNE: Right.

STEUBE: So here we are again talking about impeachment.

PAYNE: Congressman, thank you very much. We will let you get back.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

STEUBE: Thanks for having me.

PAYNE: Vaping-related deaths nationwide are going up. Is it time for the government to start cracking down?

Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A California man is the seventh person nationwide to die from a vaping-related illness, as the industry comes under heightened scrutiny.

So what are the risk of these products?

Family and emergency medical doctor Janette Nesheiwat joins me now.

You know, this is all -- everyone's talking about this. And now everyone's moving quickly. These states are moving very quickly to take what some are calling draconian action. Is it warranted at this point?

DR. JANETTE NESHEIWAT, FAMILY AND EMERGENCY MEDICINE: We have to do whatever it takes to protect our children, Charles. It's very important.

We already have now our seventh person that's died from a vaping-related illness. And I myself, I'm having very, very young patients come in with wheezing and chest pain and shortness of breath, and their lungs have collapsed.

I'm having to put them on steroids and give them breathing treatments. And some of them are being hospitalized. So we definitely need to take every possible measure that -- what we can do to help protect these young kids, teenagers.

PAYNE: Vaping is not new. Why now? Why is this happening all of a sudden?

And, listen, we -- in San Francisco, they're talking about outlawing all e- cigarettes. In Michigan, if you're caught with four different flavors, you're considered a pusher.

NESHEIWAT: Yes.

PAYNE: I mean, does the pendulum swing too far when we now take away choices for even adults?

NESHEIWAT: I think these deaths, unfortunately, are just highlighting the fact that there's an epidemic going on.

We now have millions of teens who are vaping, middle schoolers and as young as elementary school. And I think banning these flavors is just one step into the equation to help get kids off of the vape.

I think we should also look at minimizing and banning commercials and advertising to the kids. We need transparency of, what are the ingredients in these vaping products?

PAYNE: Right.

NESHEIWAT: And we need FDA regulation as well, because people are dying.

But I think the most important thing, Charles, is education. And that education is what's going to lead to prevention.

PAYNE: Well, the American Vaping Association president told Neil yesterday that the industry does not target young people. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY CONLEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN VAPING ASSOCIATION: The industry does not target youth. The industry, many people made....

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: These look like cartridges for hard drives.

They have strawberry, lemonade, bubblegum, mango, cotton candy, fruity, mint, and on and on.

Now, I understand a good number adults might like that. That might help them get off cigarettes.

CONLEY: To say a good number of adults have found them helpful vastly underestimates the number of adult smokers who have switched.

We are at about three million-plus adult smokers who have bettered their health by switching to vaping products.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: So, Dr., this week in the U.K., their top medical person in the government's is encouraging vaping. They're going the exact opposite way of America. They're echoing what the vaping industry is saying.

They're saying this is saving the lives of people who are chronically addicted to cigarettes.

NESHEIWAT: Listen, Charles, it's important to understand that, if used properly and responsibly and in the correct manner, you can use vaping as a means for smoking cessation.

But it is by far not the only way to quit smoking. There's nicotine replacement therapy, there's gum, there's patches, there's nasal sprays, there's medications, there's smoking cessation groups.

PAYNE: None of that gives you the big plumes of smoke.

I do want to ask you, because we have got a minute left.

NESHEIWAT: Sure.

PAYNE: Just give again -- outline how we can at least make this safer for the children, for our kids.

NESHEIWAT: Well, one of the biggest problems we're seeing is these bootleg street drugs, marijuana products laced with oils.

And we don't know exactly what they're putting in their vape products. We, number one, need to get those off the streets. We need to educate the kids, stay away from them. If you're going to vape, don't purchase anything off the streets, don't modify the vaping products that you have. And if you want to quit, talk to your doctor.

There's smoking cessation support out there. But it's very important that we first try to educate the kids at a very young age. Parents, teach your kids, just say no, stay off the vape, because it's highly addictive.

PAYNE: Right.

NESHEIWAT: Nicotine is highly addictive. And half of those kids who are vaping are going to go on to regular cigarette smoking, which leads to heart disease and stroke.

PAYNE: I have spoken to people in the vaping industry who actually agree with you that there should be more regulations and more education.

It's always great to have you. Thank you very much.

NESHEIWAT: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: Well, the very dangerous lesson we should learn here about those drone attacks on Saudi oil plants over there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Those drone attacks on oil plants in Saudi Arabia raising new concerns about potential threats of drone attacks here in the United States.

So, is this a real threat?

Here to discuss, security analyst Aaron Cohen.

Everyone, Aaron, first thing went through the minds, first of all, are they really so sophisticated to take out -- to create the carnage that they did in Saudi Arabia? And, if so, how vulnerable are we?

AARON COHEN, SECURITY ANALYST: Well, the drones are very sophisticated, Charles.

We're not talking about Toys 'R' Us remote control helicopters anymore. This technology has been around since I'm going to say about 2000-2001. It was -- started to be developed by the United States and Israel in the late '90s.

And although the U.S. and Israel were the first countries to essentially deploy them legally in the global war on terror, Iran, China, Russia have gotten into the game aggressively.

And the reason why is, because, like we have seen with how the Americans and how we use them in Israel against terror targets for strategic strikes, they're very cheap. The cost of innocent life is much lower than it would be, say, flying an F-16 over a target.

The training is much more significantly reduced, and that it not only saves lives and reduces risks to the soldiers who are operating them, but you can essentially suicide target these drones, the way they were used in conjunction, Charles, with cruise missiles.

And so there were about 500 attacks that were launched simultaneously, and they're very devastating.

PAYNE: But, Aaron, how would it -- how would it work here in this country, if indeed, it wasn't one of these drones I could pick up at the local mall, and how would it actually be deployed?

And what are the defenses against it? Because many security experts are saying or suggesting that there's no defense against this.

COHEN: Well, that's a great question, Charles.

So the fact is, is that the technology is getting more sophisticated on the civilian scale. And you can, essentially, for less than 1,000 bucks, walk in and buy one of these drones. The paparazzi in Hollywood use them to film celebs, to capture photos of celebrities now.

And so they're very accessible. And the fact is, is that explosives with very little amount of training can be attached to these drones. And they can be used to target civilians. They can be used to target our oil fields here. They can be used to target nuclear facilities.

And the truth is, is that you actually need Russian and U.S.-grade anti- missile defense systems to have the radar capability to be able to essentially catch these drones before they enter a certain proximity to your airspace, similar to LAX or Boston Airport.

You need sophisticated radar technology to be able to spot these things to defend and thwart them. So they're really dangerous. And it's definitely something that I think all of the U.S. government agencies should not only be looking at in terms of technology to beef up all of our national security interests, but to make sure that our law enforcement agencies have this technology as well, because these things can be targeted at a mall.

They can be targeted at any crowded area. So they're very dangerous.

PAYNE: They are very dangerous. And it just sounds like it's -- it sounds though as if we have to blanket the entire country with some sort of safety mechanisms, which sounds extraordinarily -- like, it's highly unlikely.

We have seen airports that have closed down because of all of this. So what's the next step here in America, so that people feel at least safe? Do we look at vital resources, airports, oil fields, and things like that and leave it to the government?

COHEN: Well, those are all great questions.

What I would do if I was advising President Trump as his national security consultant is, I would make sure, A, that legislation is in place to be able to enforce these laws pertaining specifically to these civilian manned drones that are caught -- that can be targeted against civilians.

PAYNE: Right.

COHEN: And then, number two, I would make sure that there is at least a minimal amount of radar equipment that's given out to our security services, whether it's law enforcement, county, state, included in the emergency packages where the warehouses are.

We can use them.

PAYNE: We have got to leave it there, though. We have got to leave it there. Great information, frightening, but great.

Thank you very much.

And, well, that will do it here, but, tomorrow, remember, decision day at the Federal Reserve -- 2:00 p.m. Eastern, I'm all over it with instant analysis on "Making Money" on the FOX Business Network.

"The Five" starts now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.