an earth shattering year, by the way, in the middle of a great recession. today, with productivity inventories and new orders falling, i represent these manufacturers in southeastern michigan. i represent a shining, incredible asset. of most robust supply chain auto manufacturers in the country. i have devoted this first year in my first term in congress, hand in hand with these small businesses, with these mid-sized companies, who employ countless people who live in the neighborhoods, who send their children to the schools i represent. to the other service businesses who benefit from the strong

economy. why get in the way of growth? o far, michigan has lost 6,200 factory jobs and we are not the only state with this type of industry as its lifeblood that is showing signs of the slowdown. states like ohio which has also shed 2,400 manufacturing jobs. pennsylvania has 9,100 fewer manufacturing workers. i hear from these individuals, these small firms. and they are wondering what it reignite take to investment in our work force and investment in them. a trade war that we have now agricultural subsidies than we have on the entire u.s. auto rescue. the auto rescue was not a

manmade crisis. it was part of a larger economic conundrum. a set of economic policies that set us on a trajectory of near implosion. of implosion of our financial, banking, insurance, housing, and the lifeblood of our industrial base. and good, bipartisan policymaking, which i was part of, came together to save the auto industry. 200,000 michigan jobs. millions more across the country. hummingindustry that is with incredible, remarkable innovation today. i know this, i see it. autonomous vehicle technology coming out of my district, 75%

ofr&d, rampant proliveuation electric vehicle technology. going into industrial parks and seeing nothing short of an innovation renaissance. we are waiting for the electric vehicle tax credit bill. we are waiting for an economic policy, not of resistance, not of fighting, but of positioning us for success. the statistics and the facts and the headlines are real. and they mean something in michigan's 11th district. to the manufacturer in livonia. to the small business in novi. to the hub of automobile manufacturing taking place in auburn hills, that i-57 corridor. and yet we want to compete.

we want to sell. we want the investment in our american work force. who and how are we paying for it? this is a referendum. on our economic policy. and is coming from agencies administrators, who the body i serve in has oversight, appropriate, and authorizing authority over. ur federal deficit has swelled to nearly $1 trillion. it is basically at $1 trillion. in this year. it happened quietly. it was maybe a peep of a headline. we can't even fathom what a $1 trillion deficit in this country means. this isn't to shame any

individual about their spending habits because i guarantee you, any of my colleagues engaging in such personal egregious behavior would be declared bankrupt and unfit for office. our nation cannot function with $1 trillion deficit for the long term. of everyat the expense american. undue and larly an saddled burden to the next generation, to those under the age of 18 who cannot even place a vote yet and are counting on us to enact policies. nd so when the headlines start to rumble, of which they have, about a manufacturing slowdown,

about an acute manufacturing recession, how can that be? when we have such incredible innovations proliferating. it is because we have not econciled our economic policy. it is because we have not embraced an economic policy for the middle class as a whole of government. our it is because democratic caucus. our democratic caucus reverb brating the mantra of "for the people" that mantra has a value, for the people. because you see this tax cut that we passed last congress, that was passed last congress, thout a democratic vote, 80% of it going to the largest corporations, not doing anything for our middle class. not doing anything for our small and mid sized manufacturers.

remember that headline? cuts to research funding sending us a generation back on scientific research? it is one of the reasons, as a subcommittee chair for research and technology, we have had over to en hearings around how manifest our country's research and technology ageneral dafment for inclusive growth. m.i.t. ity, as an professor and author of a great book on the future of work in the digital age of manufacturing recently testified in front of my committee, declaring several things of which are of note to this body. he declared his research, the

research, the primary facts that drive these headlines, our research tells us that we face two urgent economic challenges, he declared. a lack of productivity growth and too much inequality. what do we do next? how do we reclaim this agenda of economic rights? of economic growth for everybody? as he went to say in his testimony that for two centuries, since 1776, since the wealth of -- since "the wealth of nations" was written that americans benefited as we created an economic system that generated shared prosperity. but, he said, over the past several decades, the benefits of

economic growth have been much more unequal. not only has median income barely grown since the 1990's, as i previously stated, but other social indicaters have worsened. death from despair, namely suicide, drug addiction sty skyrocketting. we also know that life expectancy has declined in this country for the third year in a row. he goes on to say that these challenges, skiss. of inequality and lack of productivity, can be solved and i've taken up that challenge and elieve that a middle class economic agenda can reverse course for us. reinvesting in public education.

making higher education affordable. onramps and pathways to opportunity for the skilled work force. tax crets for companies who want to do on the job training. or sit not the case that our work force spectrum, our future, those students being educated for the jobs that there are demand to fill and those in the existing workplace who are swinging through the jungle gym of opportunities, or making their way at their place of employment, they represent who we should be investing in. they represent a phenomenal opportunity for us to support not the household name

businesses but the businesses who want to train those workers and deserve credit for doing. businesses who want to sell and i have a lot of them in michigan who want to sell their products internationally. giving them the opportunity to do so. investsgood policy that in global citizenry, invests in global outlook and allows us to bring american innovation to the world. the plight of american greatness has been t-9/11 era the plight of innovation. that we as americans proliferated the internet.

the use of information technology. that is captured on the internet. started in the late 1990's with less than 10% of information technology on the internet, by the year 2007, 98%, and then today an entirely different internet. we now talk about the internet of things. the interconnectedness of devices, the technology and wireless networks. which have a great and profound benefit to our manufacturers in michigan, we are leaders in this industrial internet of things space. we are designing, producing, making, shifting, in ways that we never have before and it needs to be shared prosperity, that is what we know we all ant.

so we look to revise some of the successful economic policies of 10 years ago, of pieces of legislation like small business jobs act that spurred investment of american products into american products, into international markets. we also we also raise the question of supply chain security. this is particularly important to those of us in michigan, in metro detroit, recognizing how important that supply chain was in world war ii. that we manufactured our way to new world order, to the ringing notions of freedom that

we helped to usher in throughout the west. creating a system of government that was admired and bestowed nd that grew our middle class. we recognize the troubling dilemma that we have with our , that in maynerals china, frustrated, threatened to cut off supply to the u.s. as part of the u.s. trade war supply, of these rare earth minerals that go into our devices, that secure the production of some of our incredible innovations, like our smartphones. that america depends on china for 80% of its rare earth imports. that it's not a desirable position to be in.

we must reclaim our supply chain. categorizereclaim or an agenda for rare earth minerals. the global rare earth market is rojected to grow in value from $8.1 billion to $14.4 billion by 2025. as driven by the demand for electric vehicles and cell phones and other products. so the story of my manufacturers n michigan, a company in rthville called soulbrain, delivering lithium ion electrolytes in steel cases which they are paying tens and tens of thousands more for. not realizing a profit. re components of the lithium

ion batteries that go into our electric vehicles. it is just one of two producers that we have in the united states. and yet they pay the price cause of the policies, the overregulation, the failure to support the small businesses and the manufacturers. the subsidies that have gone to ag and not one investment or hange for our manufacturers. albeit the several great pieces of legislation that we've passed out of the science, space and technology committee. many of my colleagues are paying attention to this. many of them are working on this, but we need the legislation to come to the floor

. we need it to be voted on in the senate. and we need to usher in a new manufacturing agenda. the world is demanding our electric vehicles. it is demanding our technology. it is demanding our manufacturing. let's revive the great ability to sell our products. let's revive the great ability to advocate on behalf of our labor force, our 21st century labor movement. let's reconcile the reality of today's economy and policies that have been 19th or 20th century proposed solutions to 21st century problems. and let's get smart about how to win and compete again. it is a new era that begets a

ew trade orientation for us. mr. speaker, i'd be remiss in of which i am ur reeling with passion for our manufacturing economy, and profound excitement, and only want to see it succeed of which an economic agenda that i believe this house majority can usher in, that i believe that this congresswoman from michigan's 11th district can , ampion, the great requests but i would be remiss to leave out in these remarks another moment and marker in time, as we will close out session tomorrow and resume our in-district work that y, and recognizing we will be hitting one year, one

year since the 116th congress was elected. and how magnificent this year has been. with so much energy and gusto, we made our way to freshmen orientation, shortly after that election. less than a week after. meeting our colleagues. meeting our deliberaters. meeting those, the small collective composite of us, the 435 of us in this house chamber, who are charged with making this federal government work for the american people. let me say, by the way, that this manufacturing agenda has tremendous return on investment. should we so choose to embrace

it as a nation. we know our house majority is ushering it in. we know we are balancing the equities and advocating for all components of a good trade deal. inspired by the buy american ntent, pushing for the enforcement standards, embracing the need for certainty to come to our small and midsized manufacturers, the manufacturers in michigan's 11th district. , e people who are wondering how will my taxpayer dollars work for me? it has been an incredible moment in time to be a part of this 116th congress. and while we will not be together as a body on both sides of the aisle, to look at each

other and to recognize what has happened in a year since what sometimes feels like dramatic action with elections, we can reflect on some of the moments that oftentimes don't even make it into news headlines or itter feeds or proclamations from members of congress. but ways in which we have embraced this new orientation of governance in the democratic house majority. of our for-the-people agenda. bringing up issues for the labor movement. whether you belong to a union or not. for our middle class. the long overdue passage of butch lewis. he butch lewis act, bringing

the pensions of many to solvency. a classic example of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something. solving people's problems, making their taxpayer dollars work. not forcing small businesses to feel a pinch, not looking job laufs in the face -- layoffs in the face, but by saying, we are investing in you. and we are championing egislation and policy that embraces and puts people at the forefront. those who are not armed with the biggest lobbyists or the fanciest offices, but who are

unting on those who hold the stewardship of trust to deliver for them. we will also recognize in this one-year anniversary mark, without being in one another's presence, that we still have a lot of work to do. and the bipartisan elixir in my humble opinion is our manufacturing economy. it is our ability to make things. it is our ability to help the people who i have spoken to directly, whose factory floors i have walked on, whose office rooms i have sat in. looking at that pathway to growth. not disinvestment, of which too many have told me that we have

had to invest elsewhere. we have had to remove ourselves from deals. we need to be competing effectively as a continent with the rest of the world. we need to take asia by storm. because we know they want our goods. we know they want our innovations. and it is that ability to do original research, the if not but for the federal government approach to basic research investment. that catalyzes and proliferates new technologies of scale. i am looking forward, mr. speaker, to continuing to learn and to grow and to advocate fiercely on behalf of my economy in michigan's 11th district, for the betterment and the semblance of our future. thank you. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor to be recognized, to address higher on the floor of the house of representatives. i appreciate all the eyes and ears that are paying attention here this evening, as we take up this most serious business of what this congress has only addressed three previous times in the history of the united states of america. as we go back through american antiquity, we will see that there was an impeachment process that was advanced shortly after the civil war with andrew johnson as president. and then we sat back for over a century before there was another issue that arose, and that was about 1974, with the impeachment effort of richard nixon.

who resigned before he faced the judgment of this united states congress. 1974. and then in 1998, i happened to have been here in this city, not a member -- elected member of congress, mr. speaker, but i came here into this city as a ate senator from iowa to a conference. as i opened up the newspaper, i saw in there that it said that there were impeachment hearings taking place in room 2141 of the rayburn house office building, for the dates of december 7 -- dates of december 7, 8, and 9. i concluded what was going on in that conference wasn't as important as me being seated there in that judiciary committee as a spectator, to be able to witness the unfolding acts of history, as the house of representatives passed judgment upon then-president bill clinton. as i listened to the testimony,

and of course, mr. speaker, i had been watching on television many of the other open public hearings that had taken place before the house judiciary committee. i was pretty well informed as to the charges that were being brought against bill clinton. and as i listened to that debate in those three days, december 7, watched some 8, i other things go on around me that i would not have picked up if i'd just been watching the committee hearings on c-span. i remember representative barney frank coming into the room and he wanted to ask questions of the witness and make his statement and they advised him that he had to have a tie on before he could be recognized. well, then he went out and borrowed a tie from someone and made a big show out of tying that tie before he was recognized to speak before the judiciary committee. i recall also that democrats in particular, in fact exclusively, didn't appear to be taking it

seriously when they were off the side of the camera, they were joking and laughing and cutting up outside the scenes. i thought that that was not the decorum that we should have when we have the most serious of constitutional issues before us, the very impeachment of a president of the united states and the prospect it's that that president, relatively soon to be impeached president, would be standing trial before the united states senate to determine whether the acts that he had been accused of and not convicted of, but accused of in the form of an indictment out of the house of representatives, whether he was guilty of those -- of those violations, which by my recollection were perjury, obstruction of justice. it seems to me that those were the three charges that made their way out the center aisle here and over to the united states senate where chief justice rehnquist presided over a trial, in the united states senate.

the question was, was president clinton guilty of the charges brought against him here, right here, in the house of representatives, and if he was guilty, did those violations that he was found guilty of rise to the level that he should be removed from office and put al gore in as president of the united states. that was the question before the united states senate. it was profound. it broke my heart to see how this country was torn apart over the disrespect in the oval office, the disrespect for the united states, the disrespect for the constitution and the decorum of the presidency. i had a difficult time maintaining my composure when i went back to iowa to talk about what i had seen. i recall going out to arlington during that time, arlington cemetery, and making my way up the hill, walking around over to the eternal flame at the grave of president john f. kennedy and

very close to him, now, of course is the grave of bobby kennedy and not far away, the grave of teddy kennedy, the three brothers who served this country so well. i remember standing with my back to the eternal flame and looking down across arlington cemetery and all the crosses there were that -- that were there around 285,000 of them at the time, looking at the bridge that gos over the potomac, and on down the mall, and if you know where to look, it's a little bit out of center, but you can tell where the white house is from president kennedy's grave. i thought about the caisson with president kennedy's casket winding its way down pennsylvania avenue, winding its way out across the potomac river, winding its way out to arlington, winding its way up to that place on the hill where i was standing where president john f. kennedy was buried with the eternal flame, still flaming, still blazing there on that location, never having been

snuffed out. i thought about a country that was full of grief for losing a president to the atrocity of the assassination of john f. kennedy and what that meant, the ble to our republic, the ble to the history of america, the blow to of our t and soul of our country that took place when lee harvey oswald pulled that trigger down in dallas that day. and i thought about what our country had gone to from 1963 until that year in 1998. we'd gone from grieving for a president lost and aspirations not achieved because of a president lost, to a place where we have a president elected that i believe so disrespected the office that he conducted himself in it and next to it in a way that was never imagined by our founding fathers, in a way i won't describe here on the floor of the house of representatives, but it washed over me that day, mr. speaker, what had taken

place, what had been taking place in the oval office, the president of the united states and the rooms adjoining the oval office, the disrespect and the desecration of that respect for the office that we so embraced and held so dear and that was so difficult for us to say good-bye to president kennedy and not that many years later, put our nation through this impeachment hearing of a president who i believe did lie under oath, did direct others to lie under oath, and did obstruct justice along the way. there were four charges brought to him on the floor of the house of representatives, i believe three were presented every over -- over in the united states senate. i haven't looked that up in a long time. it's not a place i like to go revisit very often, mr. speaker. but i recall also that once the decision was made here in the house of representatives that said we're impeaching the president of the united states for his activities with an

intern and his refusal to tell the truth about them when he's under oath, that the trial took place over in the united states senate. i think of my junior senator at the time, tom harkin, who i've had a good personal relationship with, watching him on c-span, as every senator had to do, walk down the center aisle of the united states senate as if walking down here to this table right beside me work a large book there, and on that large book it said, i do hereby pledge to do impartial justice under the law and the constitution of the united states of america, so help me god. and each senator was required to sign that book, that they would do impartial justice. that meant, they took the position of jurors to determine whether bill clinton was guilty of perjury, of obstruction of sub onation of

perjury, they had to come to the conclusion whether president clinton violated the laws in those areas, and the second question was if so, does it rise to the level that he should be removed from office? he was already impeached but does it rise to the level that she should be remubed -- removed from office. the founding fathers in our constitution gave us those standards to interpret in our time the wisdom of our founding fathers, it amawses me time after time how they left the language in such a way that we got to decide within the context of contemporary values whether or not the violations that i believe were committed by president bill clinton rose to the level that he should be removed from office. as i saiding, my junior senator alk down that aisle, as did 99 other senators, to do justice under the law and under this constitution. walked back up that center

aisle, stepped out the double doorks straight down through the rotunda where we are today, stepped up to the microphones and said, i will never vote to remove bill clinton from office, no matter what, i will not vote to remove bill clinton from office. the ink wasn't dry on his pledge to do impartial justice under the law and constitution, and he already took a pledge not to do impartial justice. here's what happened with many democrats that would refuse to vote to remove bill clinton from office. they stepped out before the same microphones and over and over again said, well, because the question was such as, is he guilty and should be removed from office all wrapped up in one, then the question was, mr. speaker, for them they said well i didn't have to decide whether he had actually committed perjury or on instruction of jusity or sub onation of perjury because fetch he had i didn't think itres. to the --res. to

the level he should be removed from office. time after time, the democrats that voted to protect president bill clinton from being removed from office made the same statement. no matter whether he's guilty or not of perjury, obstruction of justice, or subonation of perjury so what? it didn't rise to the level that he should be removed from office. they voted to protect his position in office even though we had a vice president they liked and respect and i think would have made a reasonably decent president in that time. but they held that ground for partisan reasons. now the legacy of that echoes back to the united states house of representatives and may echo back to the senate again if, whatever a president is charged with, no matter whether he's guilty or not, doesn't rise to the level that he should be removed from office, then i guess the senate's not going to remove him from office by a 2/3

vote margin required by the constitution. and so let's apply those values today. let's apply the bill clinton values today. they come back to be this that if the charges that actually don't exist yet against donald trump are some charges that are lesser than the charges that were leveled against president bill clinton, then how do these senators, some of whom are still there from 1998, how could they vote to remove donald trump from office in the united states senate if they can't even find a charge in the house of representatives and they've been churning around here for nearly three years looking for charges to impeach him with, but they can't come up with a charge that's perjury, obstruction of justice, subonation of perjury. the biggest thing they charge him with is collusion. the definition of collusion is vague but if you and i team up together and we go out and set up a business enterprise

somebody will say you're colluding. fi say i'm going to sell lemonade stands on the corn over fourth and vine and you say i'll sell it on fifth and vine that's collusion. it's no crime. it's no violation of our moral standards either, mr. speaker. but whatever charges they might -- at this point that have been speculated against president trump, nowhere near that which i believe bill clinton was guilty of. but not convicted and removed from office. but we never found out the jury from the -- did the jury in the senate never gave us a verdict on the violations of president bill clinton. they wrapped him up in the same question. did he commit perjury? democrats said, well, who knows. didn't matter. i didn't have to ask that question because i didn't think he should be removed from office even if he had. time after time. senators signed the document, walked back and decided as tom harkin did, i'll never vote to

remove bill clinton from office even though i just signed a document that said i'll do impartial justice under the law. i'm saying this, mr. speaker, because this impeachment process that we're in the middle of now is a very so lit sized operation and organization. and if you look at the votes that will come down here to the floor of the house of representatives tomorrow, rules committee met tonight and they had their dialogue going on, they're going to bring an impeachment resolution down here, weir going to have a debate on the rule, we're going to vote and it's likely going to be a clear, partisan vote. republicans on one side voting no. democrats on the other side voting yes. they don't have to believe it. they just know which jersey they have on. i'm not asserting that republicans don't conduct themselves in a similar way. instead, i'm asserting this. this is a partisan operation. and they calculated that they

could bring these charges against the president of the united states and in the effort to impeach the president find a way to tie his hands so he can't be as effective as the people who elected donald trump want and pray and expect him to be. i would take us back through this election that took place and the many hearings that i've questioned the witnesses before the house judiciary committee and some of the witnesses that i've questioned under oath go back to, let's see, janet napolitano, loretta lynch, rod rosenstein, christopher way, james comey, the list goes on. peter strzok was one of those. another one would be lisa paige. i don't believe i asked her a question but i listened to her testify. they put this whole scenario together, the tweets of -- all the tweets -- excuse me, the texts that went back and forth between peter strzok and lisa paige told us what was going on. they weaponized the f.b.i.

weaponized the department of justice. weapon size -- weaponized the state department. weaponized the c.i.a. the branches of government that were mobilized to attack not only conservatives and republicans, and -- but to attack the candidate for president, donald trump, who said during that period of time he believed that he had been wiretapped in trump towers in new york. that turns out to be true. the only way the left can argue with that, mr. speaker is that they say that definition of wiretap doesn't apply anymore because we have so much wireless we're not actually wiretap, we're just doing surveillance. well, an archaic term, been most recently archaic doesn't mean president trump wasn't right. he understood he was being bugged. in trump towers. and once he was advised of that, by an admirable admiral, rogers, he moved his operations as

president elect out of trump towers in new york out to the golf course in new jersey where he could operate with a level of confidence that he wasn't being bugged in every conversation that he had. but there was a concerted effort and it's a matter of fact today, proven, and not reasonably disputed, that there was a sincere effort on the part of a good number of people at the highest level of the department of justice and the f.b.i., the c.i.a., the state department, to newt they are president by newt they are president by any means possible and they tried to do so with their undercutting of his campaign prior to the election in november of 2016. and they continued to undercut this president as president elect. and so i'm going to -- and as president of the united states. so i'm going to give a little piece of factual history here, mr. speaker. that would be this. president trump was elected and

became a president elect on the tuesday prior to november 12, 2016. those five days or so later, on november 12, was a sunday. sunday, noon, early sunday afternoon, all of the highest ranking democrats except hillary clinton who was still in mourn, hadn't begun out in public yet, all the highest ranking democrats in the country found their way to the mandarin hotel here in washington, d.c. and they were to convene a weekend or the early part of that week planning how they were going, to i'm going to use the word, utilize, and perhaps exploit, the hillary clinton presidency that they expected would be a done deal with the stamp of approval of the voters on it by that date, november 12, ive days -- november five days after that election. but instead president trump --

he was president elect the morning after votes were counted that tuesday in november. the democrats had the so the democrats had that mandarin hotel reserved. november 12, sunday afternoon, of 2016. they had to change their agenda. their agenda was how to exploit the presidency of hillary clinton and it became now, how are we going to deal with president donald trump? and the political article that first announces this was published on the evening of november 12, 2016. and the picture in the center of that is a picture of george soros. george soros, one of the -- i want to say the top funder for the democratic party in the united states of america, involved in some 60 countries, i believe, undermining the god-given freedom and liberty that we're trying to restore, protect or advance wherever it might be, george soros was the headliner. and everybody that was there except hillary clinton, they

changed their agenda, mr. speaker. their agenda was to be, how do we exploit the hillary presidency, and it became, how do we resist donald trump? in fact, that word resist and the movement of resistance that was launched with demonstrations across the major cities in america weekend after weekend, all the way up to, including and beyond the inauguration of president trump, was a brainchild that emerged there at the mandarin hotel in washington, d.c. not only the idea of the resistance movement, mr. speaker, but other ideas on what they were going to do. by any means necessary. we have an insurance policy, as peter strzok wrote, to make sure that donald trump is never president or if he is president, that he can't conduct the operations of a president. we're going to tie his hands one way or the other.

so there they sat from november 12 to november 15, excuse me, wednesday, they came in on sunday afternoon, on wednesday noon, they're checking out of the mandarin hotel. having had this conference, this sayance about what they're going to do with donald trump. one is, they're not going to let him govern. they're going to resist, the resistance movement. and that language flowed from there. they also, i believe, designed certain pieces of language that they were going to weaponize so that they could attack the trump supporters. the make america great again, the maga people, were going to be targeted by all kinds of prajortific statements and labels. they understood that they had worn out that tired old term called racist. that most dog-eared, worn-out card in the lexicon deck of the democrats. so they were going to continue to use racist, because it still was effective, even though it was the most utilized word that

they had. and i'll say also that i learned this from a former member of congress who made it very clear, he said, when they start calling you names, that's when you know you've won the argument. they can't keep up with the debate, or they wouldn't fall to name calling. but racism, racist was worn out. they needed other words to apply. and so they began to generate some of them in the mandarin hotel. and from that day, we started to terms increased use in like nazi, fascist, white nationalist, white supremacist. those terms flowed out of the mandarin hotel and were kicked into gear and utilized across this country against people that were vulnerable to those kind of labels. they knew what they were doing. when they weaponized those terms. as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, i happen to have gotten a little curious and i did a little search on the term white nationalist. i chased it back to the year

2000 and put the search terms in and i asked, how many times was the term white nationalist used etween the year 2000 and 2016? it came back, virtually none. to be precise, virtually none really means 100 to 200 times a year, by all the publications out there, all the scholarship work that's being done, all the blog, all the comments on all the articles written, and the articles themselves, 100 to 200 times a year from 2000 to 2016, that the term white nationalist had been used. that's virtually none. in a great country like we are, with over 300 million people. and all the publications that we have. and my name shows up a lot more than that. 'm than that. i'm not always happy about that. but virtually not used, white nationalist. then, when you get to 2016, this is the year, the mandarin hotel, when they gathered together and decided what they're goinged to to try and deny an effective

president for donald trump and deny the will of the people, the search showed that that virtually never-used term of white nationalist jumped up to 10,000 times in 2016. and in 2017, mr. speaker, it jumped to 30,000 times. and in 2018 it was still there at 20,000 times. a word that was virtually unused now had become weaponized. and you can look at the charts and the graphs on this, mr. speaker. and you'll see that white supremacy, fascist and nazi all also took jumps. but the most stark jump is white nationalist. that's the term that's most weaponized. all the rest of these are weaponized also. so when you weaponize a term, it changes the meaning of it. and they know that. and they turn it into a prajortive term. and i asked a couple of more senior members just last weekend, what do those terms mean?

they said, that didn't belong in our language. i never heard that language. i sat down here this morning with a gray-haired member of the house of representatives who grew up in a similar area -- era that i did, from the south, and he said, we never used those terms. we don't know what they mean in common language. well, they were weaponized. and the definitions that the people wanted them to have in that mandarin hotel, november 12 through 15 of 2016 are the definition that have been applied to those terms and they're using them against people. that's just one thing. they also determined that they were going to be -- there were going to be demonstrations across america. and so these demonstrations ensued in city after city all over the country. they had to be funded. people didn't have anything to be aggrieved about unless -- until they were told that they weren't going to be happy with president-elect trump. so they began to demonstrate. and it was culminated here in this city june 20, 2017, mr. speaker. and that's when we came together to celebrate the inauguration of president donald trump.

and i traveled around this city. i was here for the inauguration. and i traveled to the events that it was important that i attend. and everywhere i went the city was jam packed full of these ladies in their silly pink hats. and i won't describe for the congressional record what they called them. but they were everywhere. and they had posters and signs just replete with all the obscenities that one could imagine. i believe there were more people here protesting the inauguration of donald trump than there were here those celebrating the presidency and the inauguration of donald trump. and they jammed the streets and they stood in front of our car and they blocked our traffic and they descended upon me in a mcdonald's over there, in a part of town that i thought i actually ought to have something to eat that day, and i end ended up with about 200 of them in pink hats surrounding me. i thought, i'll just debate them down to the last one. i kept asking them why are you here? we're here to demonstrater to women's rights.

and so i kept asking them, what rights do men have that women don't have? that stumped every one of them. they didn't have a single answer to that question out of 200 or so that approached me in that mcdonald's that day. but i saw what they did in this city and i asked them, they complained they didn't have enough money to pay for their health insurance, the affordable care act. the unaffordable care act is a better way to describe. it but they could buy a plane ticket from phoenix to washington, d.c., and a couple of hotel rooms so they could be there to demonstrate in their pink hats. who funded that? it wasn't out of their pocket, mr. speaker. i suspect it was out of the pockets of george soros and his people. but that builds the foundation for what's going on here. it gets us into this new year. that was january 20, 2017. shortly after donald trump was inaugurated president of the united states, he had a meeting with james comey. james comey was interviewing for

the job as director of the f.b.i. there was also an interview with robert mueller who i believe did not tell the truth, even though he was under oath, but the records show that he was interviewing for the job of director of the f.b.i. as well. james comey went outside his meeting in the oval office with president trump, sat down and typed up from his memory what he believed was the exchange between donald trump and james comey. and in short order took it up to columbia university and handed it over to a law professor who was a friend of his with the either direct or implied, explicit or implied directions, leak this information in the private meeting with donald trump to "the new york times." and the objective is to upset this country in such a way that they'll have to name a special

counsel to investigate the russia collusion that we heard about for two years. and that special counsel needs to be robert mueller. well, see how this unfolded? our attorney general, jeff sessions, who is a personal friend and someone who is -- whose intelligence and integrity i admire and respect, found himself in a place where he accepted some advice that i think to this day he would tell you he wished he hadn't accepted that advice. but it was -- the advice was to recuse himself from anything that has to do with the russia investigation. so our attorney general was essentially unable to address the circumstances of this russia investigation, the special counsel's name, robert mueller, the special counsel's name by rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, the number two in the department of justice, and his position has been fallen under significant questions

since that time as well. but, mr. speaker, we ended up with robert mueller. and we ended up with about 17 or so investigators/prosecutors hand-picked, hand-picked by whom? it was robert mueller? sure didn't sound like it two years later when he's under oath trying to explain the mueller report before the united states congress. it sounded more like he wasn't in charge or if he was in charge, he didn't remember what was going on. it's a good example of why when you have witnesses to testify, especially in these times, when the destiny of america is on the bubble and can turn, you have to have those witnesses open in the public where people can watch them, watch their body language, watch their facial expressions, listen for the pauses before they answer the questions. and listen to the voice inflexion to determine whether you believe that witness or whether you don't believe that

witness. if you just end up with a transcript that one day we're able to extract from adam schiff, you're not able to evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses and you what have to do then is just accept what he has served up. but the mueller investigation went on for nearly two years, with roughly 17 investigators. at least 13 of them were clearly -- clearly had a history of partisanship, mr. speaker. some of them were ruthless, undercutting partisan prosecutors. weissmann would be one of those who comes to mind for me. one of the people on that panel was peter strzok. and it looks like peter strzok was the individual that was in the center of most everything that was going on in the weaponization of the department of justice and the f.b.i. was he the individual that named all the folks that became part of the mueller team and when the text with his lover lisa paige came out and we saw the

partisan, nasty, bitter, undercutting, on the verge of treason, texts that came back and forth between peter strzok and his lover, lisa paige. it became obvious even to robert mueller that he needed to remove peter strzok from the investigative team, the mueller team that was seeking to find something that they could impeach donald trump for. that was peter strzok. but we went through nearly two years of that. $25 million to $30 million. and when the mueller report came out, they asked robert muler to come testify before congress. throughout all of that, democrats were licking their chops, mr. speaker. as surely we've got this mueller report, he's such a smart guy, and james comey hand-picked him and james comey despise the president and he'll move to new zealand if donald trump is

re-elected. so surely james comey gave us good advice that robert mueller will be the man that can pull this information out and document the transgressions of donald trump so that we can impeach him and remove him from office, because of that an mossity that exists -- animosity that exists when a person steps up and tells the truth and tells america first and says, we're going to restore the respect for the rule of law and we're going to restore our border security and we're going to restore our american strength, all of these points that come forward, america first, all of that was apparently an at ma to the people in the department of justice and the f.b.i. and other departments, the c.i.a., for example. we saw as this unfolded this great anticipation that the mueller report was going to bring forth these multiple items

that would be just cause to landed donald trump and with a big thud and the testimony of robert mueller fell flat for a number of reasons. some said he wasn't astute to deliver the report effectively, that may or may not be true. but the real reason was lack of substance. if there had been substance there, someone on the democrat side on the judiciary committee, maybe several, would have pulled that substance out so we would have known what it was in the mueller report that would be worthy of impeaching the president of the united states. if you remember, mr. speaker, when the mueller report landed and robert mueller testified before the committee and his testimony came out to be very empty and vacant and vack youous, there was a sealens out

of the democrats for a couple of weeks. what are we going to do? there must be something to impeach the american president. in the end, this judgment on impeachment is up to the american people. not right away, not directly but eventually. they figured out after two weeks or three weeks or so, they weren't going to be able to utilize the mueller report to impeach the president. what do they do? they have to tool up another argument. what shall we use to get rid of this president. two years burned up on the mueller report. all the weapon nizzation in the justice department and f.b.i., i want to make sure people understand. i lived through watergate and i watched it closely and i lived

through the impeachment of bill clinton and i watched it more closely, but as far as bill clinton's impeachment was concerned, it wasn't a matter so much of corruption in government as it was the matter of the corruption of the president himself. be that as it may, it threatened our republic, our constitutional republic. if i take you back to 1974 and we talk about the nixon impending impeachment, not the actual, but the impending impeachment and what took place then in watergate, this i will say this horrible event within american history that tore this country apart, what happened was, a few of the campaign operatives for nixon's re-elect

team broke into watergate to gather information from the democrats. that was really student and it was really against the law. and yet, it wasn't within the knowledge base of president nixon that they were about to or had invaded that space and committed that burglary. but when nixon found out they had committed the burglary, he set about trying to cover it up. we were involved in the vietnam war. we had peace with honor was the message that president nixon was involved in. and we were having success and we were having significant success. and president nixon decided that the violations of the law that took place in the watergate break-in, he made a decision to cover it up rather than saying these people ought to be

frogmarked into justice and clean this up and nothing that was commanded from on high, instead he tried to cover it up, which was a dramatic mistake in judgment by the president of the united states. had he been successful and never heard about this, the vietnam war may have had a entirely different result. president nixon had a different responsibilities to weigh in trying to cover it up. and when we look back in the rearview mirror and said that was a mistake because he got caught. he would have been removed interoffice because republicans had integrity and democrats had partisanship and integrity and decided that a president who was that dishonest needed to be removed from that office. that was the judgment of the

people here in the congress. and i do not quibble with those positions that were taken. that was richard nixon 1974 and bill clinton, 1998. covering up the crime of a burglary for political, motivated purposes, covering up the sexual activities by violating -- by committing lonies of perjury and, those truly, if they are not high crimes, they are serious misdemeanors. but they came up with nothing in the russian investigation with robert mueller, even though they had rigid this game against president trump with the dosier and who concluded with the russians to produce the dosier, the d.n.c. they started out with a check to do opposition research because

he is a never trum per. t get handed over and checks written through the attorney's office in order to try to diffuse the money trail on how this was put together. the dosier was unverified and it s full of manufactured fartives plugged in there by the russians. and if you look at their efforts, yes, they did try to effect the results of the election here in the united states. i believe that's true. i don't know they had a choice president ed to be of the united states but wanted to chaos. hey spent $500,000 on internet ads and hacked into messages. no evidence that they effected

any vote tally. there is always a speculation that perhaps they dl affect the way some people voted. we also know and i'm going to say hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertisement in this country to effect the election. i recall sitting with a group of russians with a conference and ter having them, their response was 1 of her russian hackers were in a building in russia and created chaos with 13 of them working trying to be hackers. what would it have been if there was 26. that was their answer to me. i have to give them a little nod, a silent smile, you had enough audacity to make a statement, what it amounts to is

13 russians didn't effect the elections. they have been indicted and will never be brought to justice, 13 russians and we are all tied in knots for two years and the mueller report comes back to be nothing and so what's the next play? kind of like, you call a big play in a big football game and you drop back and get sacked for a 25-yard loss and go back to you ddle, what do you do now? you come up with another trick play. let's see. we are going to get the president for a phone call to ukraine and we know the story on that, it is contemporary and except that when you read the transcript of that phone call,

the phone call that has been vetted that the context and language of that phone call is the transcript they type up in that call, i read it or i'm going to get this piece in my gut that flips that says, oh, he actually said that? and i read it with that in mind carefully, i found no place that troubled me in any way whatsoever. and when the president said and i heard him in his own voice, it was a perfect phone call, that's a strong argument, it's perfect phone call, although i don't think many much is perfect in this society. the request and do the investigation of burr ease ma country hasma, this

been full of questions of what is going on ukraine. and if joe biden's son is on the board, isn't that worth looking into. and we also have the videotape of then vice president joe biden, i held a billion dollar check out and told them if you don't fire this prosecutor that is investigating the oil company whose board my son is on, if you don't fire on, i'm leaving in six hours, with the check, and i'm not coming back. and he said, and i can't say these words here on the here on the floor, and son of a blank, they fired him. that leveraged the investigator out who was on the trail who he believed was on the trail of corruption in ukraine and that

corruption pulled into question at least hunter biden if not joe biden himself. hy was joe biden extorting the investigator of ukraine while dangling a billion dollar check in front of him, why was joe biden doing that and why was it moral for joe biden to enforce a shutdown of an investigation that would be cleaning up corruption in ukraine before u.s. dollars would be put into that system? he is enhancing corruption, he is not cleaning up corruption. in donald trump's statement was an encouragement to do the investigation to clean up the corruption. a billion dollar equivalent of a bribe by joe biden, i'll give you this loan guarantee if you

fire the investigator versus donald trump implying, but not saying, can you help us out here, can you help us with the investigation, can you reopen this investigation into burisma because i'm hearing a lot of problems over here about what is going on in the ukraine. joe biden a political rival? he isn't. he is a candidate in a democratic primary for president of the united states and started out with 24 or so democrats all together and he may be the -- i'm confident he liz beth warren and the momentum has flattened out. why would president trump be so concerned about this that they would ask to go into this investigation.

and i say instead, the president of the united states has a duty to investigate for corruption and we have an obligation, he has an obligation by law, not to advance those funds until there is assurances that corruption is cleaned up. that is a statute that has been served up to him. i read the language and i don't have the language in front of me to quote it exactly. so president trump, i believe, was following not only his conscience and good leadership but totaling the law that compelled him to ensure that corruption was being cleaned up in ukraine before usaid could go into ukraine. they turned it around and assign a motive and make the motive stick and that motive it will rise to the level that we will impeach him in the house of

representatives for seeking to use u.s. dollars as an incentive for an investigation into his political opponent. how about an investigation into corruption? the corruption was being investigated until joe biden stepped in and extorted the firing of the investigator in ukraine and all donald trump said was can you light this up again and find out the truth. why isn't anybody on the other side of the aisle, why are they worried about an investigation if they're clean? the investigation must be shut down by democrats for some reason. from where i stand, i'm clean. if somebody says i'm going to investigate steve king, i said go ahead. if that is all you have to do with your life go ahead. d those who went down to the

sc inch f and adam schiff is holding his secret impeachment hearings in and members said it will cost us millions of dollars. i said it won't cost me a dime. lock me up if that is the case, because we have a constitution to protect and preserve and a country to protect and preserve and we have a legacy that requires us to step up and defend our constitution of the rule of law and truth, justice and the american way no matter how heavy the partisan politics get and they are heavy. they are so heavy that the history of impeachment is kicked ide by adam schiff and nancy pelosi. . that's the

1974 resolution for the impeachment of richard nixon. and i laid it down beside the 1998, this is october 7, 1998, resolution for the impeachment of bill clinton. and when you lay them down side by side and you read them, they come out and says, authorized in directing the committee on the judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of william jefferson clinton, president of the united states. the committee -- this says resolved that the committee on the judiciary, this is nixon, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof, appointed by a chairman in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the house of representatives

to exercise constitutional power to impeach richard nixon, president of the united states of america. the committee shall report to the house of representatives such resolutions and articles of impeachment and other recommendations as it deems proper. this is substantively the same. the provisions in here, the language varies a little bit in the preambles. but the provisions in here are identical. because they had an understanding that they needed to be in conformance with the constitution, mr. speaker, with history, with a sense of fairness and trust and knowing that antiquity would look back on this and see, how did they conduct themselves in the house of representatives when they were faced with this question of whether or not to impeach a president of the united states? well, i have this other resolution here, mr. speaker. this is h.res. -- before the rules committee tonight, doesn't have a number on it, now that i have it, it's not at all like

the resolutions, the identical resolutions of richard nixon and bill clinton. it's also curious that in modern times we have gone back to this impeachment over and over again where the only other impeachment up until richard nixon was andrew johnson, shortly after the civil war. but here's what we have. this is i think the adam schiff resolution. it says, the chair shall designate an open hearing or a hearing -- or hearings pursuant to this section. great. we went down to the skiff and shined sunlight on that and now they have capitulated to the pressure that was brought to bear that day. and they're going to have an open hearing or hearing. well, i wrote a little note on there that says, yeah, they're going to have an open hearing. one. it's a minimum of one. they might have more if they decide to. but not all. they're still determined, this resolution says that they can go back down into the basement room

of the capitol, the secret room, and conduct their secret hearings with their secret rules and the public can't see and the public can't hear the audio, the public can't see the video, the public -- no other members of congress can watch the facial expressions, listen to the voice inflexions, watch the body language, and determine the demeanor of the veracity of the witnesses. that's not going happen under this resolution that comes to us tomorrow. it's just, they're going to do one open hearing. it might be a gavel in and gavel out. that will comply with this resolution. and they can move on. it says also, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, that's the secret committee, the permanent select committee, shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes as determined by the chair. so adam schiff can decide if he wants to question a witness for

beyond five minutes. 10 minutes. 20 minutes, 30 minutes, even 45 minutes. because they have a 90-minute cap on this. as determined by the chair. but if adam schiff want to question a witness for six minutes only, that means that devin nunes can only question that witness for six minutes only. there's a pretty tight rule, isn't it? so if they like what the witness is saying, they're going to continue to ask questions. if they don't like what he's saying, he's going to shut that questioning off and that schutz off devin nunes and he's the only one that can ask questions of that witness. it says, but the time shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. sure. but the chair determines how long that time will be. and then it says, it shall not exceed 90 minutes, which i mentioned in the aggregate. only the chair and ranking member or a permanent select committee employee, means staff, if yielded to by the chair or the ranking member may question witnesses during such periods of

questioning. so, the rest of the committee that is allowed access into that secret basement room, in the dark, in the confines of the most secret room in the entire capitol complex, they are constructing a method to try to impeach the president of the united states. banana republic does that. soviet style justice does that. it's not justice in the soviet. it's not justice here. but it says also, it says, at the conclusion of quking -- questioning, pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning pursuant to this clause. does that allow all members? that's not determined. minority witness requests, the ranking member may submit to the chair in writing any request for witness testimony. hm. but the request shall be accompanied by detail written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each

requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of the resolution, it says the ranking member of the committee is authorized with the concurrence of the chair to require as deemed necessary to the investigation subpoena. let me boil this down for you, mr. speaker. what it really says is, the chair has subpoena power. and the ranking member has subpoena power if the chair allows the ranking member to have subpoena power. which means the minority runs this whole show. but the ranking member, the minority -- excuse me, the majority runs this whole show. the ranking member, the minority, if he doesn't like it, that he is denied subpoena power, oh, he's free to appeal it to the full committee. the full committee which is a dominant -- dominated by democrats, and commanded by adam schiff, and will never, and i'll put this point down, will never roll their speaker on a question of subpoena for a witness that might defend the president of

the united states, as called by the ranking member devin nunes. that's what we're dealing with. in the case that the chair declines to conquer -- concur in the proposed member, they shall have the right to go to the committee. he can go to the committee, but the votes aren't going to be there in an objective fashion. the votes are only going to be those that follow down the partisan line. that's what it's set up to do. it says the chair is authorized to make publicly available the transcripts of depositions. and they may be the appropriate redactions of classified and other sensitive information. other sensitive information means what have adam schiff decides the public shouldn't know, if it runs contrary to his agenda, will be redacted before any report comes out of there. and remember, we're not going to see the video, we're not going to hear the audio. we're not going to read the transcript. we're going to get the edited

version that adam schiff would deliver to us. it says the select committee on intelligence is directed to issue a report for its findings and recommendations. the chair shall transmit and support to the committee on the judiciary. well, so the report would go to the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee then would have the responsibility presumably of taking up an impeachment motion and debating it up or down and voting it in judiciary committee. it takes a lot of authority out of the hands of jerry nadler, the chairman of the committee. and it says to me that the speaker, and adam schiff and others in leadership over on this side of the aisle don't have the confidence that jerry nadler will handle in the way they would like to see him handle it. so the report that's required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the committee on foreign affairs, the committee on prepared nd reform,

with their counsel with the chairs. seems like they left out the ranking members. there will be no minority input in this. they're just going sit down with the chairs of some other committees that they claim to be relevant and have them weigh in on this before this report comes out, mr. speaker. the chair of the select committee on intelligence in consultation with a ranking member will transfer such records or materials to the committee on judiciary. the chair in consultation. what's consultation mean? that means adam schiff can say, hey, devin nunes, i'm going to introduce this report and send it over to the judiciary committee. what do you think? and ranking member nunes can say, i don't like it. i think it's dishonest. well, too bad, we consulted. now i'm sending it to judiciary. that's all that this language requires. this is a phony, phony resolution, mr. speaker. committee on the judiciary. it, s, it authorizes including such procedures as to allow for the president and his

counsel. oh, that's good. be happy to have the president's counsel there. but it doesn't say the judiciary, it says authorizes the committee to conduct those proceedings, it doesn't say shall allow the president's counsel. so that's all menacing. squishary is authorized to promulgate procedures as it deems necessary. well, that will be the majority deeming necessary that which they think will best impeach the president, not an impartial hearing. am i out of time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: just in conclusion, then, mr. speaker, i appreciate that heads up you a noise -- announcement and i want to see a balanced and a fair process, one that's consistent with the history of the united states of america. i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the speaker for his attention. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the gentleman's items will appear in he permanent record.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.