[Pages H7055-H7067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IMPEACHING JUDGE SAMUEL B. KENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
recognized for 1 hour.

General Leave

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member
of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, and ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to control the time on his side for purposes
of debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we are here today to perform one of
the most solemn duties under the Constitution, which is to consider the
impeachment of a sitting member of the judiciary, a Federal judge, who,
but for the congressional power of impeachment, holds a life tenure on
his office.
The judge in question, Samuel B. Kent of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, has already pled guilty to
obstruction of justice and has entered into and is residing in a
Federal prison at this moment.
The Judiciary Committee's independent investigation, conducted
admirably by a special task force established for that purpose and led
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), has concluded that the
charge underlying that guilty plea is overwhelmingly borne out by the
evidence, as are the related charges of repeated sexual assault against
various court employees under his supervision.
Judge Kent's conduct is described in greater detail in the report
filed by our committee, which voted unanimously 29-0 to recommend four
articles of impeachment to the House. The court documents and other
materials are available on the committee's Web site.
Of the three branches of government devised by the framers of our
Constitution, only the judicial branch is insulated from the
accountability of standing for election. This is by design. The other
two branches, the legislative and the executive, are designed to be
democratically responsible to the people, but the judicial branch is
designed to be independent, to interpret the laws passed by the
Congress without favor and without fear of political reprisal.
And so, article III, section 1 provides that Federal judges hold
their offices during ``good behavior.'' And when a judge abuses his
power, when by his conduct he proves himself unfit to hold his office,
he cannot be turned out by the voters; instead, it falls to the
Congress to ensure that the public trust of that office is protected
through the power of impeachment.
Congress has used this power sparingly. In our Nation's history, only
13 Federal judges have been impeached, and even fewer convicted.
Needless to say, the conduct at issue here is both shocking and
shameful. In due course, many of the disturbing details of Judge Kent's
appalling conduct will more than likely be revealed, but now I want to
emphasize for the Members the following points:
The committee is recommending impeachment not merely on the fact that
the judge has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to prison; rather,
it is his conduct--making false statements to his fellow judges in an
official inquiry and sexually assaulting courthouse personnel--that the
committee has independently determined to constitute high crimes and
misdemeanors warranting his impeachment and removal from office.
The Judiciary Committee has determined overwhelmingly and
unanimously, after most careful examination, that the judge's conduct
plainly renders him unfit to remain a Federal judge.
Entrusted to use the power of his office to dispatch justice
impartially, this judge abused his power blatantly, with partiality and
favor, for his own personal gain. Entrusted to render justice, he has
instead sought to evade it. Only Congress can remove Judge Kent from
office. Until we do so, he will continue to draw a salary as a sitting
Federal judge, even from his prison cell.
While the executive can prosecute him and the judiciary can impose
punishment for his criminal conviction, only the Congress of the United
States has the power to remove him from office, and that is our
constitutional duty here today.
I bring this resolution to the floor with heavy regret that we are
even called upon to take such action. But let it be clear, I have no
doubt that this member of the judiciary must be removed from the office
that he has so blatantly abused. The evidence is overwhelming and the
grounds for impeachment perfectly clear. I therefore urge my colleagues
to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider and vote on Articles of
Impeachment following U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent's guilty plea and
sentencing.
Judge Kent is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to obstruction of
justice and lying to a panel of his Federal judges who were
investigating allegations that he sexually assaulted two women on his
staff.
Following Judge Kent's guilty plea and sentencing, the House
authorized the Judiciary Committee to undertake an inquiry into whether
the House should impeach Judge Kent. Recently, the Impeachment Task
Force of the Judiciary Committee heard testimony from two women whom
Judge Kent sexually assaulted. Their testimony about Judge Kent's
conduct was troubling, especially because Judge Kent abused his
authority as a Federal judge to intimidate his staff into silence.
Judge Kent has refused to appear before the committee. Judge Kent
continues to abuse his position of authority by refusing to resign
immediately. Instead, he sent a letter to President Obama tendering his
resignation effective June 1, 2010.
Last Monday, Judge Kent reported to Federal prison to serve a 33-
month prison sentence. By resigning effective June 1, 2010, Judge Kent
is attempting to collect his full judicial salary for another year,
even while he sits in prison. That's why we are here today, to take the
next step to putting an end to Judge Kent's abusive authority and
exploitation of American taxpayers.
On Wednesday, June 10, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved
four Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. Two of the articles
relate to his sexual misconduct, and two of the articles relate to
Judge Kent's lying about his conduct.
I am not unsympathetic to the claims that Judge Kent endured
difficult personal tragedies and may suffer from mental illness;
however, he does not have the right to continue to serve as a Federal
judge and collect a taxpayer-funded salary while sitting in prison for
felony obstruction of justice.
Judge Kent has remained on the bench long after he sexually assaulted
two women and lied to law enforcement officials. It is now time for
justice; justice for the American people who have been exploited by a
judge who violated his oath of office and obstructed justice by lying,
and justice for the victims who were subjected to abuse and
humiliation.
Although his attorney claims that Congress has ``better things to
do,'' ensuring that a Federal judge convicted of a felony does not
receive a taxpayer-funded salary while sitting in jail is important to
our system of justice and a priority of this Congress. Every day that
Judge Kent remains on the bench is one day too long.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these Articles of
Impeachment to restore integrity to the Federal bench. And I hope the
Senate will act quickly to ensure swift justice for Judge Kent, his
victims, and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize one of our
most distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee who headed the

[[Page H7056]]

task force for impeachment in our committee. Adam Schiff has performed
remarkably well. It is a bipartisan committee. And his former
experience himself as an assistant U.S. attorney held him in very good
stead.
I recognize the distinguished gentleman from California for 10
minutes.

{time} 1345

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman and appreciate the great leadership
of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Today we find ourselves in the regrettable circumstance where we must
act to remove a Federal judge from the bench. The task before us is not
one we welcome, but it is an important responsibility that has been
entrusted to us by the Founders and one which we must not shrink from.
Throughout our Nation's history, we have been fortunate to have a
distinguished judiciary that has served as an essential and coequal
branch of our government. We owe a great deal to the success of our
representative democracy to the positive, thoughtful, and vital role
played by the Nation's judges. To insulate members of the bench from
political and other pressures, to ensure that judges are free to
determine the justice of the cases before them on the basis of the law
alone and no outside influence, Federal judges are appointed for life.
Unlike elected officials, who may be removed periodically by the
voters or serve a term that comes to an end, the Founding Fathers
provided only one extraordinary method of removing a Federal judge,
that of impeachment. The President cannot remove a judge he has
appointed or any other, and the courts cannot. Conviction of a Federal
or State offense is also powerless to remove a judge from office. Only
the Congress may remove a judge and only then upon impeachment of the
House under article I, section 2 of the Constitution and conviction in
the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors
justifying their removal.
Because we have been blessed by an extraordinarily professional
judiciary and because the bar for removal is high, the extraordinary
remedy of impeachment of a Federal judge has been used only 13 times in
the Nation's history. But the matter before us today warrants its use
once again.
Last month, the House Judiciary Task Force on Judicial Impeachment
was directed to inquire whether Judge Kent should be impeached. As the
chairman of the task force, I would like to report on our work and
provide the Members of the House with a procedural history of the
matter as well as an overview of the relevant facts. As a task force,
we were extremely well-served by the very capable ranking member from
Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, and have worked to proceed in a fair, open,
and deliberate manner, and we have done so on a bipartisan, really
nonpartisan, basis.
Samuel Kent was appointed to the Federal bench in 1990 and served in
the Galveston courthouse in the Southern District of Texas. During that
time, he was generally the sole judicial officer in the courthouse, an
imposing figure who exercised a substantial degree of influence and
control both inside and outside of the courtroom.
At some point in 2001, Judge Kent began sexually assaulting at least
two women employees who served in the courthouse. These repeated
assaults occurred through at least May of 2007, when one of the
victims, Cathy McBroom, filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit alleging sexual misconduct
on the part of Judge Kent. In response, the Judicial Council of that
circuit appointed a Special Investigative Committee to investigate the
complaint.
On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent, pursuant to his own request, was
interviewed by the Special Investigative Committee of that circuit.
They sought to learn from Judge Kent whether he had engaged in unwanted
sexual contact with Ms. McBroom or others. During the interview, Judge
Kent made material false statements about the extent of his
nonconsensual contact with Ms. McBroom. He was also questioned about
another female employee in the courthouse, his secretary Donna
Wilkerson, and told the investigative committee that once Ms. Wilkerson
informed him that his advances were unwelcome, no further sexual
contact had occurred, when, in fact, he continued his nonconsensual
sexual contacts with both Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson.
The Department of Justice commenced a criminal investigation relating
to Judge Kent's conduct as well. In November 2007, Judge Kent asked for
and was granted an interview with the FBI. During the voluntary
interview that he had requested, he was asked about his alleged conduct
and repeated the same material false statements he had made to the
Fifth Circuit.
In August of 2008, Judge Kent, through his attorney, asked for a
meeting at the Department of Justice. And at this meeting he sat down
with his attorney, an FBI agent, and representatives of the Department
of Justice, and again Judge Kent made material false statements about
the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with Ms.
McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson.
Intimidated by Judge Kent and worried about losing her job, Ms.
Wilkerson was not initially candid with investigators and law
enforcement when questioned about Judge Kent's conduct towards her. In
fact, it was not until her third grand jury appearance that Ms.
Wilkerson was willing to reveal the full extent of sexual assault she
endured from Judge Kent.
On August 28, a Federal grand jury returned a multi-count indictment
against Judge Kent, and on January 6 the grand jury issued a
superseding indictment against Judge Kent alleging counts of aggravated
sexual abuse as well as obstruction of justice and abusive sexual
contact.
On February 23, the day his criminal trial was set to begin, Judge
Kent pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, Judge Kent knowingly, voluntarily, and truthfully admitted
having nonconsensual sexual contact with both women and obstructing
justice in his testimony before the Fifth Circuit investigative
committee.
On May 11, Judge Kent was sentenced to a term of 33 months in prison
and ordered to pay fines and restitution. Judge Kent began his term of
incarceration on June 15, this past Monday.
The day after sentencing, the House of Representatives directed the
Judiciary Committee Impeachment Task Force to inquire whether Judge
Kent should be impeached, and the task force held an evidentiary
hearing on June 3, receiving testimony from Ms. McBroom and Ms.
Wilkerson as well as Professor Arthur Hellman, a judicial impeachment
scholar. Professor Hellman provided expert testimony that concluded
that making false statements to fellow judges, as well as abusing his
power as a Federal judge to sexually assault women, were independent
grounds that would justify and warrant Judge Kent's impeachment and
removal from office.
The task force invited Judge Kent to testify, but he declined our
offer. The task force received correspondence from Judge Kent that was
made available to all Members and was entered into the Record. The task
force also invited Judge Kent's counsel to participate in the hearing
and present arguments on behalf of his client as well as to provide the
opportunity to question any of the witnesses, and Judge Kent's counsel
also declined to appear or participate.
Subsequently, Judge Kent's counsel sent a letter to the committee
questioning the veracity of the women and making an extraordinary
admission that their testimony was unnecessary because, quoting from
the letter: Judge Kent's guilty plea to the felony of obstruction
presents sufficient grounds for impeachment.
The task force also received a letter from Judge Kent to the White
House, dated June 2, stating his intention to resign June 1 a year from
now. But neither his surrender to custody nor his stated intention to
resign a year from now affect his current status as a Federal judge or
a constitutional obligation to determine whether impeachment is
warranted.
Our proceeding today does not constitute a trial, as the
constitutional power to try impeachment resides in the Senate; rather,
the House's role is to inquire whether Judge Kent's conduct provides a
sufficient basis for impeachment. According to leading commentators and
historical precedent on

[[Page H7057]]

the issue, there are two broad categories of conduct that have been
recognized as justifying impeachment: serious abuse of power and
conduct that demonstrates an official is unworthy to fill the office
that he or she holds.
Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference of the United States
transmitted a certificate to the House certifying its determination
that consideration of impeachment of Judge Kent may be warranted. After
concluding that the full record establishes Judge Kent should be
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the House Judiciary Task
Force met on June 9 and voted unanimously in favor of recommending four
Articles of Impeachment, which have been read before the House today.
On June 10, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H. Res. 520 favorably
reported by a rollcall of 29-0.
Judge Kent, incident to his position as a U.S. district judge,
engaged in deplorable conduct with respect to employees associated with
the court. Such conduct is incompatible with the trust and confidence
placed in him as a judge. In particular, the record demonstrates that
Judge Kent sexually assaulted two women who were both employees of the
court. Furthermore, Judge Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or
impeded an official proceeding by making false statements to the
Special Investigative Committee of the Fifth Circuit and again by
making false material statements to agents of the FBI and Department of
Justice.
These acts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice are, as the
judge who sentenced Mr. Kent to incarceration stated, ``a stain on the
justice system itself.'' Were the House of Representatives to sit idly
by and allow Mr. Kent to continue to hold the office of U.S. district
judge while sitting in prison, and after committing such high crimes
and misdemeanors, it would be a stain on the Congress as well.
Judge Kent's conduct was a disgrace to the bench. That he would still
cling to the bench from the confines of his prison cell and ask the
public, whose trust he has already betrayed, to continue paying his
salary demonstrates how little regard he has for the institution he was
supposed to serve.
I urge the House to approve each of the four Articles of Impeachment
set out in House Resolution 520.
Today, we find ourselves in the regrettable circumstance where we
must act to remove a federal judge from the bench. The task before us
is not one that we welcome, however, it is an important responsibility
that has been entrusted to us by the Founders and one which we must not
shrink from.
Throughout our nation's history, we have been fortunate to have a
distinguished judiciary that has served as an essential and co-equal
branch of our government. We owe a great deal of the success of our
representative democracy to the positive, thoughtful and vital role
played by the nation's judges. To insulate members of the bench from
political and other pressures, to insure that judges are free to
determine the justice of the cases before them on the basis of the law
alone and no outside influence, federal judges are appointed for life.
Unlike elected officials who may be removed periodically by the
voters, or serve a term that comes to an end, the Founding Fathers
provided only one extraordinary method of removing a federal judge--
that of impeachment. The President cannot remove a judge he has
appointed or any other, and the courts cannot--conviction of a federal
or state offense is also powerless to remove a judge from his office.
Only the Congress may remove a judge, and only then upon impeachment in
the House under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, and
conviction in the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors justifying their removal.
Because we have been blessed by an extraordinarily professional
judiciary, and because the bar for removal is high, the extraordinary
remedy of impeachment of a federal judge has been used only 13 times in
our nation's history. But the matter before us today warrants its use
once again.
Last month, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial
Impeachment was directed by the House to inquire whether Judge Kent
should be impeached. As Chairman of the Task Force, I'd like to report
on our work and provide the Members of the House with the procedural
history of this matter as well as an overview of the relevant facts. As
a Task Force, we were extremely well served by the very capable Ranking
Member from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, and have worked to proceed in a
fair, open and deliberate manner, and we have done so on a bipartisan,
really, nonpartisan basis.
Samuel B. Kent was appointed to the federal bench in 1990 and has
served in the Galveston courthouse in the Southern District of Texas
for most of his career. During that time, he was generally the sole
judicial officer in the courthouse, an imposing figure who exercised a
substantial degree of influence and control both inside and outside of
his courtroom.
At some point in 2001, Judge Kent began sexually assaulting at least
two women employees who served in his courthouse. These repeated sexual
assaults occurred through at least May of 2007, when one of the
victims, Cathy McBroom, filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, alleging sexual misconduct
on the part of Judge Kent. In response, the Judicial Council of the
Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigative Committee to
investigate Ms. McBroom's complaint.
On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent, pursuant to his own request, was
interviewed by the Special Investigative Committee of that Circuit. The
Investigative Committee sought to learn from Judge Kent whether he had
engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Ms. McBroom or with others.
During the interview, Judge Kent made material and false statements
about the extent of his non-consensual contact with Ms. McBroom; in
fact, he had engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with
her. Judge Kent was also questioned about another female employee in
the courthouse, his secretary Donna Wilkerson. He told the
investigative committee that once Ms. Wilkerson informed him that his
advances were unwelcome, no further sexual contact with her occurred,
when in fact he continued his non-consensual contacts with Ms.
Wilkerson as well.
On September 28, 2007, in an ``Order of Reprimand and Reasons''
signed by Chief Judge Edith Jones, the Judicial Council for the Fifth
Circuit suspended Judge Kent with pay for four months and transferred
him to Houston. The Order did not disclose the underlying findings of
fact or conclusions by the Special Investigative Committee.
The Department of Justice then commenced a criminal investigation
relating to Judge Kent's conduct. In November 2007, Judge Kent asked
for and was granted an interview with Federal Bureau of Investigation
law enforcement agents. During the voluntary interview that he had
requested, he was asked about his alleged conduct and repeated the same
material false statements that he made to the Fifth Circuit.

In August 2008, Judge Kent through his attorney asked for a meeting
at the Department of Justice Headquarters in Washington, D.C. At this
meeting, he sat down with his attorney, an FBI agent, and
representatives from the Department of Justice. Judge Kent again made
material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of
his non-consensual sexual contact with Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson.
Intimidated by Judge Kent and worried about losing her job, Ms.
Wilkerson was not initially candid with investigators and law
enforcement when questioned about Judge Kent's conduct towards her. In
fact, it was not until her third grand jury appearance, that Ms.
Wilkerson was willing to reveal the full extent of sexual assaults she
endured from Judge Kent.
On August 28, 2008, a federal grand jury returned a three-count
indictment charging Judge Kent with two counts of abusive sexual
contact against Ms. McBroom, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b),
and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse against Ms. McBroom,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1).
On January 6, 2009, the grand jury issued a superseding indictment
that re-alleged the three counts involving Ms. McBroom and added three
additional counts. Count four charged aggravated sexual abuse against
Ms. Wilkerson in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1), a crime
punishable by up to life in prison. Count five charged abusive sexual
contact against Ms. McBroom in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b).
Finally, the superseding indictment charged Judge Kent with
Obstruction of Justice for corruptly obstructing, influencing, and
impeding an official proceeding by making false statements to the
Special Investigative Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson.
On February 23, 2009, the day his criminal trial was set to begin,
Judge Kent pled guilty to Obstruction of Justice. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, Judge Kent knowingly, voluntarily, and truthfully admitted
having nonconsensual sexual contact with both women, and obstructing
justice by testifying otherwise before the Fifth Circuit Investigative
Committee.
On May 11, 2009, Judge Kent was sentenced to a term of 33 months in
prison and ordered to pay fines and restitution to Ms. McBroom and Ms.
Wilkerson. Judge Kent began his term of incarceration on June 15th,
this past Monday.
The day after his sentencing, the House of Representatives directed
the House Judiciary

[[Page H7058]]

Committee Impeachment Task Force to inquire whether Judge Kent should
be impeached. On June 3, 2009, the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment
held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Judge Kent's conduct
provides a sufficient basis for impeachment and to develop a record
upon which to recommend Articles of Impeachment to the House Judiciary
Committee.
The Task Force received testimony from Ms. McBroom, Ms. Wilkerson,
and Professor Arthur Hellman, a judicial impeachment scholar from the
University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson
both testified that they were sexually assaulted by Judge Kent on a
number of occasions, and detailed several of these incidents for the
Task Force.
Professor Hellman provided expert testimony that concluded that
making false statements to fellow judges, as well as abusing his power
as a federal judge to sexually assault women, were independent grounds
that would justify and warrant Judge Kent's impeachment and removal
from office.
The Task Force invited Judge Kent to testify, but he declined our
offer. The Task Force received correspondence from Judge Kent that was
made available to all Members and entered into the record. The Task
Force also invited Judge Kent's counsel to participate in the hearing
and present arguments on behalf of his client, as well as to provide
the opportunity to question any of the witnesses. Judge Kent's counsel
also declined to appear or participate in the hearing.
Subsequently, Judge Kent's counsel sent a letter to the Committee.
The letter questioned the veracity of the two women, citing an
anonymous caller at length and claiming there are other witnesses who
contradict the two women. The letter also made the extraordinary
admission that their testimony was unnecessary because, quoting from
the letter, ``Judge Kent's guilty plea to the felony of Obstruction
presents sufficient grounds for impeachment.''
The Task Force also received a letter from Judge Kent to the White
House, dated June 2, 2009, stating his intention to resign effective
June 1, 2010, a year from now. Neither his surrender to custody, nor
his stated intention to resign a year from now, affect his current
status as a federal judge or our constitutional obligation to determine
whether impeachment is warranted.
Article III, Section 1 provides that ``The Judges, both of the
supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
Office.''
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that ``all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
Our proceeding today does not constitute a trial, as the
constitutional power to try impeachment resides in the Senate. Rather,
the House's role is to inquire whether Judge Kent's conduct provides a
sufficient basis for impeachment.
According to leading commentators and historical precedent on this
issue, there are two broad categories of conduct that have been
recognized as justifying impeachment: serious abuse of power, and
conduct that demonstrates that an official is ``unworthy to fill'' the
office that he or she holds.
The House Report accompanying the 1989 Resolution to Impeach Judge
Walter Nixon summarized historical precedents that inform the meaning
of the term ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' stating that, ``Congress
has repeatedly defined `other high crimes and misdemeanors' to be
serious violations of the public trust, not necessarily indictable
offenses under criminal laws. Of course, in some circumstances the
conduct at issue . . . constituted conduct warranting both punishment
under the criminal laws and impeachment.'' The Report concluded, ``When
a judge's conduct calls into question his or her integrity or
impartiality, Congress must consider whether impeachment and removal of
the judge from office is necessary to protect the integrity of the
judicial branch and uphold the public trust.''
Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference of the United States
unanimously transmitted a Certificate to the House of Representatives,
certifying to the House its determination that consideration of
impeachment of Judge Kent may be warranted. The certificate concludes
that ``Judge Kent's conduct and felony conviction . . . have brought
disrepute to the Judiciary.''
After concluding that the full record establishes that Judge Kent
should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the House
Judiciary Impeachment Task Force met on June 9th and unanimously voted
in favor of recommending four Articles of Impeachment for consideration
by the House Judiciary Committee.
These four Articles were subsequently introduced in the House in the
form of House Resolution 520. Article I focuses on Judge Kent's sexual
assault of Ms. McBroom. Article II Article focuses on Judge Kent's
sexual assault of Ms. Wilkerson.
Article III focuses on Judge Kent's obstruction of justice by making
false statements during an official proceeding of the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Donna
Wilkerson.
Article IV focuses on Judge Kent's material false and misleading
statements about the nature and extent of his non-consensual sexual
contact with both women to agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and to representatives of the Department of Justice on
two separate occasions.
On June 10th, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H. Res. 520
favorably reported by a roll call vote of 29-0.
Judge Kent, incident to his position as a U.S. district court judge,
engaged in deplorable conduct with respect to employees associated with
the court. Such conduct is incompatible with the trust and confidence
placed in him as a judge. In particular, the record demonstrates that
Judge Kent sexually assaulted two women who were both employees of the
court. Furthermore, Judge Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or
impeded an official proceeding when he made false statements to the
Special Investigative Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
Finally, the record demonstrates that Judge Kent made material false
and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his non-
consensual sexual contact with Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson to agents
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to representatives of the
Department of Justice.
These acts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice are, as the
judge who sentenced Mr. Kent to incarceration stated, ``a stain on the
justice system itself.'' Were the House of Representatives to sit idly
by and allow Mr. Kent to continue to hold the office of U.S. District
Judge while sitting in prison, and after committing such high crimes
and misdemeanors, it would be a stain on the Congress as well.
Judge Kent's conduct was a disgrace to the bench. That he would still
cling to the bench from the confines of his prison cell, and ask the
public whose trust he has already betrayed to continue paying his
salary, demonstrates how little regard he has for the institution he
was to supposed serve. I urge the House to approve each of the four
Articles of Impeachment set out in House Resolution 520.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the ranking member of the
Impeachment Task Force.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it's a rare occasion when the House of Representatives
must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a Federal judge. Indeed,
the last time this occurred was 20 years ago. However, when evidence
emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own
advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised,
and the House of Representatives has the duty to investigate the matter
and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore
confidence in the judicial system.
It is also rare for the members of the House Judiciary Committee to
agree on anything. However, the committee voted unanimously last week
to report out House Resolution 520, which contains the four Articles of
Impeachment against Judge Kent. This vote came after a thorough
investigation and much work by the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment.
Specifically, the task force conducted an investigation of Judge Kent's
conduct, which included working with the FBI, the Department of
Justice, and the Fifth Judicial Circuit. The task force also conducted
an investigatory hearing on the matter, at which two court employees
who were victimized by Judge Kent testified about the extent of his
sexual abuse. At that same hearing, we heard from a constitutional
scholar who testified that Judge Kent's misconduct rises to the level
of impeachable offenses. It is important to note that Judge Kent was
invited to testify at the hearing. His attorney was also invited to
testify and participate in the hearing. Both declined to attend.
As you have already heard in statements today and as you have already
seen in the Judiciary Committee report, Judge Samuel Kent's misconduct
merits the serious step of issuing Articles of Impeachment. The
evidence also shows that he lied to the FBI and the

[[Page H7059]]

Department of Justice about the nature of his sexual misconduct with
court employees. In addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of
justice and to committing repeated acts of nonconsensual sexual contact
with court employees. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison for
committing felony obstruction of justice, and this past Monday he
reported to prison and began his prison term.
However, because the Constitution provides that Federal judges are
appointed for life, Samuel Kent, despite the fact that he is sitting in
prison, continues to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of
approximately $174,000 per year, continues to collect his taxpayer-
funded health insurance benefits, and continues to accrue his taxpayer-
funded pension.
This is the first time that a Federal judge has pled guilty to a
felony, has reported to prison, and has still not resigned from his
office. This shows how deep Judge Kent's audacity truly runs. In fact,
Judge Kent even took the step of sending a letter to the President
explaining that he intends to resign 1 year from now. However, this
purported resignation is not worth the paper it is written on because
nothing would prevent Judge Kent from withdrawing his resignation at
any time before the expiration of the year. What it really amounts to
is an attempt to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
American people.
It is not a pleasant task to impeach a Federal judge; yet when a
judge so clearly abuses his office, it becomes necessary to take the
appropriate action in order to restore the confidence of the American
people in their judicial system. The Constitution gives the House of
Representatives the power and responsibility to impeach Federal judges.
It is my strong recommendation that the Members of the House adopt
these Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. It is my hope that
the United States Senate will then act to swiftly bring this matter to
trial and quick disposition.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the
chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership
in this effort, along with all the members of the task force on both
sides of the aisle. As ranking member of the task force, I appreciate
the fact that this effort has been undertaken in an extremely
nonpartisan fashion. And I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers
and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive yet expeditious and
bipartisan consideration of these Articles of Impeachment in the full
Judiciary Committee.

{time} 1400

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to recognize for 5 minutes the
distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee who served on the task
force with great skill, Sheila Jackson-Lee from Houston, Texas, who has
been an anchor in the proceedings that have brought us to this stage. I
also want to commend Bob Goodlatte for his services during that period
of time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think it is important for all of us to
recognize the solemnity of this day, and I thank the managers and the
task force members that I believe worked in that spirit.
As I come from Texas and Houston, I think it is important to note
that the judge, as all people may have in America, has his defenders;
and he will have an opportunity for those defenders to continue to
raise their voice and to continue to emphasize their beliefs. As my
colleague from Texas indicated, he had debilitating conditions, and he
had faced tragedy. And so that should be recognized.
But I believe what I've come to acknowledge on the floor of the House
and, in fact, I am coming to acknowledge is that there is the
responsibility constitutionally to follow the law. So article II,
section 4, in fact, says that we are to proceed with impeachment
specifically if civil officers have engaged in partly or been convicted
of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Specifically
in count six of the plea agreement, we find language that says that
this judge willingly agreed that he had obstructed justice. He admitted
to falsely stating to the Special Investigative Committee of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, lying to an official
judicial body that the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with
person B was one kiss, and that when told by person B his advances were
unwelcomed, he then further said they were consensual; and that is to
block person A from coming forward or having any veracity or anyone to
back up what that person has said. I use A and B because I want to,
again, respect that these are more than troubling comments and actions
against two women who deserve to have a safe and secure workplace.
Then article III indicates that judges must hold their position and
they must, in essence, be persons of good behavior. To create a
workplace that does not allow the safety and security of your employee
and, in particular, witness A and B, that poses a serious problem. So I
am interested in making sure that we track the constitutional roadmap
that we are now in and that we are aware of the fact that we can track
the constitutional provisions and, in essence, say that this judge is
not of good behavior. He now sits incarcerated. He has been convicted
of a felony. The felony is obstruction of justice, and he did it
knowingly.
I would like a moment to just say that in the proceedings where he
had to proceed with his plea, the court specifically said, ``You have
the right to persist in the prior plea of not guilty that you have
entered in this case. And in that event, the burden is entirely upon
this government to prove your guilt''--you don't have to go forward
with this--``to a jury's satisfaction with proof beyond a reasonable
doubt, which is a very high standard of proof.
``And under the law and the Constitution''--to the judge who was
standing there--``you are presumed innocent,'' which means you do not
have to prove your innocence or prove anything at all, meaning that the
judge was questioned on his plea that involved the obstruction of
justice, misrepresenting and denying witness A, who has alleged of his
activities with her and person B, that everything was consensual and
that person A is not telling the truth. He did not have to proceed.
And so the court says, ``However, if I accept your guilty plea this
morning, each of those rights will be denied.''
And after the defendant said, ``Yes, sir,'' the court proceeded and
said, ``And knowing that, is it your intent to enter a plea of guilty
this morning to this charge?'' The defendant answered, ``Yes, sir.''
That was, in essence, a plea to the felony of obstructing justice.
Sad as it may be, as we proceed to the constitutional procedure of
the voting here and then a trial in the Senate, it lays down the
framework that we must act. We have no inability to ignore it. We must
act. High crimes and misdemeanors, worthy behavior, all of them have
been counted by a willing expression of this individual, this judge,
that he has committed this offense.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is crucial that we proceed in moving on
the articles of impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Impeachment Task Force of the House
Judiciary Committee, I rise today in support of a recommendation for
impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent. First and foremost it is necessary
to establish the legal authority of Congress to make impeachment
determinations. The Constitution clearly places many of the operations
of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress--a power not granted
reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist
Papers (described by James Madison as ``the most authentic exposition
of the heart of the federal Constitution''), which confirm that
subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional.
Federalist #51 declares: ``the legislative authority necessarily
predominates.''
Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress--not the Court--is
``the confidential guardians of [the people's] rights and liberties.''
Why? Because the Legislature--not the unelected judiciary--is closest
to the people and most responsive to them. When the Court did claim
that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution--that
Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality, the Founding
Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:
``[T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the
Legislative as by the Judicial authority.''
After establishing that the Congress has jurisdiction to preside over
impeachment proceedings, it is imperative to outline the legal

[[Page H7060]]

standard for impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S.
Constitution delineates the standard for removal from office of all
civil officers by stating that: ``The President, Vice President and all
civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
The Constitutional Standard is further buttressed by the intent
behind Article II, Section 4. The Founders' intent for impeachment was
to protect the fundamental principle of ``the consent of the
governed.'' The Constitution carries no title but ``We the People,''
and impeachment removes from office those officials who ignore that
standard of adhering to the values of the people--that sexual abuse and
pleading to a felony is not good behavior. It is important to note that
the Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for
life, but only for the duration of ``good behavior'' (Art. III, Sec.
1).
For this reason impeachment was used whenever judges disregarded
public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced
arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker. Previous
generations used this tool far more frequently than today's generation;
and because the grounds for impeachment were deliberately kept broad,
articles of impeachment have described everything from drunkenness and
profanity to judicial high-handedness and bribery as reasons for
removal from the bench. Historically speaking, sixty-one federal judges
or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment; of
whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted. The noted legal
scholar from Yale University Professor Charles Black writes in his
Impeachment Handbook that, ``In the English practice from which the
Framers borrowed the phrase, `High Crimes and Misdemeanors' denoted
political offenses, the critical element of which was injury to the
state. Impeachment was intended to redress public offenses committed by
public officials in violation of the public trust and duties, offenses
against the Constitution itself. In short, only `serious assaults on
the integrity of the processes of government,' constitute impeachable
offenses.''

One of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in the
Federalist Papers No. 65 that, ``Those [impeachable] offences which
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, [in] other words, from
the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which
. . . relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.''
As Hamilton makes clear, criminal conduct alone was and is not
enough. The conduct also should involve public office. That should be
the standard here as we proceed. Given the context of the
Constitutional standard for impeachment coupled with the intent of the
Framers, the issue at hand is whether Judge Kent's conduct constitutes
high Crimes and Misdemeanors, within the framework of the Constitution.
On review of the facts, we find that Judge Kent's obstruction of
justice charge based on providing testimony to the FBI and the DOJ on
the nature and extent of his relationships with his former employees
while the Judge was in office, does in fact meet the standard of high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Furthermore, Judge Kent's felony conviction for obstruction of
justice raises issues of fitness to the bench. While Judge Kent's
felony conviction on its face satisfies the Constitutional standard of
impeachment, the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of
the Judge made by former employees continue to call into question Judge
Kent's fitness for Office.
Pursuant to witness testimony the Impeachment Task Force heard from
Cathy McBroom, Former Case Manager for Judge Kent, Ms. McBroom
recounted over ten episodes of sexual misconduct she experienced while
working for Judge Kent. Ms. McBroom noted that Judge Kent's physical
presence was imposing at 6'4", 260 pounds, and coupled with his
frequent self-references to his power, this made it difficult for her
to believe that she would be able to prove the Judge's misconduct and
successfully pursue outside employment in the Galveston legal
community.
Donna Wilkerson, Judge Kent's former Legal Secretary also testified
before the Task Force. Wilkerson stated that during her tenure as
Kent's legal secretary, she suffered seven years of psychological abuse
and sexual misconduct. Wilkerson noted that each episode of sexual
misconduct always took place in the office, and seemed to follow
lengthy lunches where the Judge returned to work intoxicated.
While the issue of Judge Kent's possible alcohol dependency and the
condition of his mental health may be mitigating factors in this
Committee's impeachment determination, the real issue is whether Judge
Kent is fit for the position he holds. Accordingly, the conduct of
Judge Kent while in office as 5th Circuit Court Judge of Galveston,
Texas yields him unfit for office under constitutional standards.
Kent did submit a letter to President Obama and to our Task Force
requesting permission for withdrawal from the bench one calendar year
from now. Pursuant to Judge Kent's felony charge, it would not be
appropriate for him to collect a salary and pension over the course of
the next year. Additionally, under the guidelines of Judge Kent's
proposal, his withdrawal from office would not go into effect until the
day of the withdrawal, which means that Kent's decision to remove
himself from office would be revocable at any time up until the final
date of withdrawal.
Mr. Speaker, it pains me to take action against a member of the bench
from my own state, but the Constitution imposes upon us a duty that we
must uphold. As such, on the issue of whether Judge Kent's conduct
constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors, I believe that all of us
should agree that he has. Given our Constitutional duty, I urge my
colleagues to support this extremely important and difficult decision
of impeachment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Impeachment Task
Force and also a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to demand a
division of the question so as to result in a separate vote on each of
the four articles of impeachment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is divisible and will be
divided for the vote by article.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, both the Impeachment Task Force and the Judiciary
Committee unanimously adopted and reported out House Resolution 520.
The overwhelming support for this resolution is indicative of the
weight of the evidence supporting the four articles of impeachment
against Judge Samuel B. Kent. A Federal grand jury indicted Judge Kent
on five counts of sexual assault involving two of his female court
employees and one count of obstruction of justice.
In February of this year Judge Kent pleaded guilty to count six of
the superseding indictment, obstruction of justice, pursuant to a plea
agreement. As a part of the plea agreement, the government agreed to
dismiss the remaining five counts at sentencing. At that time I called
on Judge Kent to resign and stated that I would introduce articles of
impeachment upon his sentencing in May if he did not resign. On May 11,
2009, Judge Kent was sentenced to 33 months in prison. On May 12 I
introduced the first resolution calling for Judge Kent's impeachment.
Judge Kent tried to use his knowledge to work the system by
requesting a waiver for disability retirement. In February I wrote the
court, asking it to carefully consider all of the particulars
concerning Judge Kent's request. On May 27, Fifth Circuit Chief Judge
Edith Hollan Jones denied Judge Kent's request. The Impeachment Task
Force held an evidentiary hearing where both victims of Judge Kent
testified as witnesses. In addition to the two victims, Alan Baron, the
lead task force attorney, provided an overview of the investigation. As
a part of his statement, he identified and introduced into the record a
number of documents. University of Pittsburgh Professor Arthur Hellman
provided expert testimony that concluded that Judge Kent's conduct in
making false statements to fellow judges, and thereby obstructing
justice, as well as abusing his power as a Federal judge to sexually
assault women employees, constituted independent grounds to justify his
impeachment and removal from office. The task force afforded Judge Kent
and his counsel unlimited opportunity to participate exhaustively in
the hearing. However, both Judge Kent and his counsel declined our
invitation. After this objective and definitive review of the facts,
the weight of the evidence against Judge Kent was substantial enough
that it became quite obvious that he should not remain a Federal judge.
Articles I and II of the articles of impeachment reflect the improper
conduct made by Judge Kent toward two of his court employees. On
numerous occasions he sexually assaulted the two female court employees
by touching their private areas and attempting to engage each woman in
a sexual act with him. Article III is an article that incorporates some
of the false or misleading statements made by Judge Kent to
investigators and the grand jury. It notes that he corruptly
obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding. Our hearing
and the record we have compiled produces clear

[[Page H7061]]

and convincing evidence that Judge Kent lied to law enforcement
authorities during the investigation as well as to the Federal grand
jury. Article IV alleges that Judge Kent made material false and
misleading statements about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual
sexual contact with the victims to FBI agents and representatives of
the Department of Justice.
Our purpose for being here today is not to punish Judge Kent. Our
purpose is to ensure the integrity of the Federal judiciary.
Impeachment is invoked only when the conduct erodes the public's
confidence in government. Judge Kent has clearly violated the public's
trust and dishonored his role. Judge Samuel B. Kent, who by his own
admission obstructed justice to cover his own misdeeds, cannot remain a
Federal judge. He is the first judge in the history of our Republic to
plead guilty to a felony and refuse to promptly resign his seat on the
bench. Other judges have been convicted of crimes and refused to
resign, but never has one pled guilty and attempted to stay on the
bench. To permit him to retain his position would inflict grievous and,
indeed, irreparable damage to the Federal judiciary and, I submit, to
the Congress as well.
There are two basic questions in connection with this impeachment.
First, does the conduct alleged in the four articles of impeachment
state an impeachable offense? Absolutely and without question, it does.
The articles allege misconduct that is criminal and wholly inconsistent
with judicial integrity and the judicial oath. Clearly, everyone would
agree that a judge who lies to a judicial body investigating his
conduct or who deceives Federal investigators by lying in an interview
is not fit to remain on the bench.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman 30 additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The second question is, did the conduct occur? The
simple fact that Judge Kent pled guilty confirms that the conduct did,
in fact, occur. Today he is sitting in Federal prison, collecting a
paycheck from the taxpayers. He is not fit to sit upon the Federal
judiciary, and we must perform our constitutional duty to impeach him.
Support House Resolution 520. Send the judge to the Senate for a
trial.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize for 3 minutes
a former magistrate himself, Hank Johnson of Georgia, who is Chair of
the Courts Subcommittee and an important member of the task force that
was headed by Chairman Adam Schiff.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not a happy
day anytime we have to take this type of solemn action.
I first want to thank my chairman, the Honorable John Conyers from
Michigan, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, for his
promptness and his diligence in bringing this matter to us as soon as
humanly possible. And we're at this point now because of the chairman.
I also want to recognize our colleague Mr. Adam Schiff who, having been
entrusted by the leadership to bring this to the floor, has performed
admirably. And I lastly want to thank Ms. Cathy McBroom and Ms. Donna
Wilkerson. These are the two ladies that took the covers off of this
egregious behavior by Judge Kent. The integrity of our judiciary is
fundamental to the functioning of our legal system. Judge Samuel Kent's
egregious behavior leaves no doubt that he is not fit to remain a
judge.

{time} 1415

Can you imagine having to go to work every day, having to go back to
your job after a weekend, and you know that at any time or any day that
you could be subjected to sexual misconduct by your boss? And you have
a great Federal job, you need your job for your family, so you just
endure it for year after year after year, until it gets to a point
where you have to file a complaint and subject all of your personal
affairs to the Nation. It took a lot of courage for them to do that,
and I appreciate that. I want to apologize on behalf of all males for
them having to go through that.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a situation where the judge has
committed sexual abuse repeatedly. He has lied about it. He has pleaded
guilty to the felony charge of obstruction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. He lied about it, and he admitted that he was
in fact guilty of the sexual abuse.
So this is what we call a slam dunk. There is no reason for this
judge to remain on the bench. He should have resigned, but he didn't
have the decency to do that, so now we must do what we must do.
I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the impeachment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Impeachment
Task Force and a former attorney general of the State of California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, article III, section 1 of the Constitution, in
describing lifetime tenure of Federal judges, uses these words: ``The
judges shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' That is the
starting point of our inquiry here in this impeachment.
When you look at article II, section 4, talking about impeachment, it
says, ``The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.''
Some people mistakenly believe that you need a criminal conviction as
a condition precedent to us acting. That is not true and has never been
true. In this particular case we do have a criminal conviction. But the
Articles of Impeachment go beyond that to some of the underlying facts,
specifically with respect to the sexual assault performed by this
judge, Judge Kent.
The question before us is whether or not he is fit for office. The
answer seems to be obvious. One who would use their office in this way
to commit sexual assault is unfit for any office, but particularly that
of a Federal judge. Why do I say that? Because they are given lifetime
tenure, and in this circumstance he was the sole judicial officer in
this courthouse.
Interestingly, now he says to us we should have some sympathy for him
and extend him some mercy because he had no peers to speak with,
anybody he could talk with about the serious problems in his life.
The very fact that he was the only judicial officer in that
courthouse gave him enormous power, which he repeated to his victims on
more than one occasion, saying he was the law, he was the judge. In
other words, he had what I refer to as a reign of judicial terror or
tyranny over these individuals, utilizing his power as a Federal judge
to misuse that power in such a way to put these women in a situation
where they thought they had nowhere to turn. Just based on that, he
ought to be removed from office.
I should say to our colleagues who are watching in their offices
right now, a simple review of the report presented by this committee
will show sufficient evidence to justify every single article. We will
vote on every single article in this House, as we have always done, and
it is important for us to do that so that when we go to the Senate,
they have the opportunity to review each single article of impeachment.
This is extremely important, not just for Judge Kent, not just for
his employees, who have suffered unnecessarily, but for the entire
judicial system.
For us to tarry a single day is to do injustice. This judge is now
receiving, as has been said, his salary as a sitting judge while he
sits incarcerated in a Federal institution of confinement. What
arrogance. And if we do not act, we are letting the word go out that
we, the only branch of government that is enabled by the Constitution
to act in these circumstances, do not take our constitutional
obligation seriously.
We cannot resist acting here and we cannot resist asking the Senate
to act as expeditiously as possible. This Federal judge has demeaned
his office, has demeaned this country, has demeaned his oath of office
and the Constitution itself, and we need now to act. We have sufficient
evidence presented on this record for all Members to vote in favor of
each and every article of impeachment.

[[Page H7062]]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the task force and
also the Chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the chairman of
the task force, the ranking member of the committee, and Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
This unquestionably has the facts that are obvious for this House to
vote for impeachment. This judge has abused his office and justice by
pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, committing obstruction of
justice and lying to an official panel, and has taken an action upon
his employees and his position, women, that is an affront to all women
in this country. And these are actions that are high crimes and
misdemeanors worthy of the vote of impeachment. That is unquestioned.
But what is particularly impressive to me is the procedure that this
House has acted in and the speed to make sure that the public Treasury
and the public trust are protected.
This man does not deserve his pay. He does not deserve his position.
He does not deserve his pension. For he has shamed the country, the
Judiciary, and been offensive toward people and good conduct, and for
those reasons it is important that this House act, that the Senate have
the opportunity to try this man, and to protect the public Treasury and
the public good.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Impeachment Task Force and a
former district judge from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the leadership and the
very responsible conduct of the chairman of the task force, Adam
Schiff, for having done an exemplary job in moving this along and
bringing it to a head as quickly as could have humanly been done, and
to Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith. We have worked together
on this because it is a very serious matter when our Federal courts are
held in less than high esteem.
We have a Federal judge, as has already been mentioned, who pled
guilty to obstruction of justice. He admitted to nonconsensual sexual
acts. We have the transcript from the Federal court hearings in which
there is actual specificity of misrepresentations. We also can take
judicial notice of his orders and opinions that he wrote himself.
It is very clear that, as some of the witnesses testified, he was
arrogant, he was a bully. That is not enough to impeach someone or
remove them from office, but certainly obstruction of justice would be
under the circumstances here.
What I found particularly offensive beyond the obstruction were the
games that were played by this judge with this body. Here the day
before we were having our hearing of the task force, we get a
resignation letter dated June 2, 2009, addressed to the President,
saying, ``I hereby resign from my position as United States district
judge for the Southern District of Texas effective June 1, 2010,'' a
year away, a resignation that could be withdrawn at any time before it
became effective.
Now, we heard testimony from the witnesses that this judge was
particularly manipulative, and that is how he was able to continue the
nonconsensual sexual assaults over and over, because he was so
manipulative. They were afraid of losing their jobs, and it was clear
that he had said, I am the king, and it is good to be king.
It is good to be king, unless you are committing crimes and misusing
the office to which you were entrusted.
But the resignation letter would just be a resignation, if it were
sincere. But then we got another letter before our final hearing before
the committee asking that it be taken into consideration that he had
these problems and he needed his salary and his medical and he was
trying to pay medical bills of his late wife. Ironically, he wasn't
quite as concerned for his late wife when he was groping and
manipulating and bullying people within his trust and care as a Federal
judge.
We heard testimony that if someone had come before his court and used
the same reasons that he gave as to why he ought to keep getting his
salary, that he would not only have not been moved to sympathy, he
would have been moved to anger and would have taken it out on the
defendant.
So even at this late date, there is no evidence of contriteness.
There is no evidence of remorse, other than being caught. There is more
manipulation, which makes clear all the more that he should not have
his request granted that he be paid as a Federal judge while he is
sitting in prison for committing crimes while he was getting paid to be
a Federal judge.
Let's bring this to an end and vote for the impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Poe), the deputy ranking member of the Crime
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and also a former district
judge from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think a little history is in order
here, because only Congress can remove a Federal judge. It is part of
the checks and balances in our Constitution. It prevents the executive
who doesn't like what a judge is doing from taking that person out of
office. It prevents other judges in the United States in the judicial
branch from removing a judge when they don't like that judge's opinion.
That is our duty today, to resolve this issue.
Over my career, I have been somewhat critical of Federal judges, but
the reason is because of a philosophical difference sometimes with
interpretation of the Constitution and constitutional law.

{time} 1430

For the most part, most of our judges, the hundreds that serve all
over the United States in the third branch of government, have the
utmost integrity and demeanor. In our judicial branch, I would hope we
would always have the best legal minds on the bench, not the best legal
minds that appear before the bench as attorneys. Unfortunately, that's
not universally true, because our Federal judges are underpaid. The
lawyers that appear before them, for the most part, make more than the
Federal judges. But they serve, not because of money. They serve
because of their pride and belief in our Constitution and public
service.
Judge Kent is the exception to this rule. We are past the stage of
allegations because he made admissions against his own interest in a
court of law sufficient to convict him of a felony to the degree it is
an abuse of office, abuse of duty, while serving on the bench in a
courtroom. That basically is the end of the story. It is a felony. It
is a high crime and misdemeanor. He's in prison, and his actions since
his conviction show a haughty spirit and a total disregard for his
conduct.
Mr. Speaker, in the United States, we don't pay Federal judges to go
to the penitentiary. He should be impeached today by this body.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank all of those who
volunteered on this task force for impeachment. And I especially want
to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for pulling this
together in their professional fashion and the people on our side of
the aisle and Mr. Schiff from California who has taken to conduct
himself, I think, with a solid degree of professionalism throughout
these proceedings.
And I'm very well aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rare and
extraordinary step that this Congress is taking, and that this is a
serious moment. And when I read through this report that's been
produced by the task force that pulled together the data in a
compressed fashion, it is appalling to me that this could have gone on
as long as it did.
But I will say, when the conviction came down and the sentence was
made, the 33 months in the Federal penitentiary to Judge Kent, this
Congress acted immediately and quickly and did so in a bipartisan
fashion to do our constitutional duty, and brought this through the
hearing and committee action to this floor and, with urgency, is ready
to send it over to the United States Senate, whom I believe will act
also immediately with dispatch.
And as I look at this, I see this as an abuse, as arbitrary power.
The high

[[Page H7063]]

crime and misdemeanor that we're talking about is sexual abuse of
subordinates, and the arbitrary power of using the official oppression
of the power of his office and the threat of removing them from their
jobs if they raised a voice, and also the threat that no one would
believe them because he had manipulated the others around him and, to
some degree, I believe that is true.
So it's essential that we take this extraordinary step, Mr. Speaker,
and I am gratified that this Congress has acted immediately, pulled
themselves together to take this action in a bipartisan fashion in a
solidly constitutional fashion. We have, I think, added to today and
will continue to add to the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors,
and further put into the Record a solid foundation, and send a warning
out to other judges that might think they could abuse this power.
So I urge adoption of this language that's here, and I commend my
colleagues.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun, who is also a member of the Homeland
Security Committee.
(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
resolution. This judge should be, and I think will be, impeached with
this resolution. And it's about time for this body to do its
constitutional authority, to be a check on judges. Unfortunately, this
Congress has not fulfilled its constitutional authority in many
instances.
Article I, section 1, sentence 1 says, all legislative powers therein
granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
We have had a perversion of the Constitution by both administrations
of both parties in the Presidency, as well as by Congress. The
Constitution has been perverted. We all swear to uphold the
Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic. We've got a
lot of domestic enemies of the constitution, and I think enough is
enough.
Under the Constitution, in the writings of our Founding Fathers in
the Federalist Papers, including the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice, they very clearly delineated what they meant for the
Constitution to mean. And it's time that we, as Congress, took our
rightful places, being the strongest power of the Federal Government,
to stop this spending, to stop the destruction of our children's and
grandchildren's future.
I rise in support of the resolution.
This afternoon . . . the House of Representatives will exercise one
of the great checks and balances built into the United States
Constitution . . . the power to impeach.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of
Representatives the sole power of impeachment.
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution lays out the criteria for
who can be impeached and for what offenses . . . It specifies that--
``the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for . . . and
conviction of . . . treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.''
These ``civil officers'' include federal judges and cabinet members.
The serious nature of impeachment is evident as the House of
Representatives has only moved to impeach 18 officials in more than two
centuries . . . This includes two presidents . . . one cabinet member .
. . one senator . . . and 13 judges--not including today's proceedings.
Judge Samuel B. Kent . . . of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas . . . has pled guilty to unwanted, non-
consensual sexual contact with two employees . . . testifying falsely
before a special investigative committee of the federal judiciary . . .
and making false statements to the Department of Justice.
His crimes certainly fit the high standard for impeachment that our
Founding Fathers intended . . . I applaud the members of the Judiciary
Committee on both sides of the aisle for exercising their
Constitutional duty and moving this to the full House for a vote.
When thinking about today's historic action . . . I also think about
how far Congress and the Federal Government have strayed from what our
Founding Fathers intended.
One only needs to read the historic Federalists Papers . . . written
by three of the most prominent authors of our U.S. Constitution
including the very first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice . . . to
understand that our Founding Fathers intended Congress to be the
strongest and most powerful of the three branches of government.
Yet, too often in this modern era . . . we the Congress . . . have
abdicated our power to legislate . . . allowing the Judicial and
Executive branches to greatly expand their roles far beyond what the
framers of our Constitution ever intended . . . all while taking
liberty away from the American people.
Today, the Executive and Judicial Branches are sadly doing the job of
the Legislative Branch . . . regardless of which party sits in the
White House or in the Speaker's chair.
President George W. Bush went forward with the auto bailout despite
Congress's clear opposition . . . President Barack Obama has created
numerous unconstitutional ``Czars'' with massive power once reserved
for Senate-confirmed officials.
Executive Orders were once rarely used . . . but today they have
become the norm for Presidents to bypass Congress and judicial review.
And today, our federal benches are filled with judicial activists who
are hell-bent on legislating from the bench.
When is this madness going to end?
When is this body . . . the United States Congress . . . going to
reclaim the power the Constitution has given this institution . . .
intended to protect the liberties of the American people?
Today we are exercising our Constitutional authority to remove a
judge who clearly is not fit to serve. But this should also serve as a
wake-up call to this legislative body that our work should not stop
with just this one vote.
We must continue to bring accountability to those who violate their
constitutionally-permitted responsibilities. . . . Those who legislate
from the bench . . . without regard to the will of the people . . .
Those who by-pass the Congress to institute policy.
As our Nation's first President once said: ``Government is not
reason, nor eloquence . . . It is force . . . And like fire, it is a
dangerous servant and a fearsome master.''
Today, we may use force to impeach . . . But we should constantly
remind ourselves that this Nation sits on the precipice . . . looking
to us for direction.
I urge my colleagues to not only support this resolution to impeach
Judge Kent . . . I also urge them to take this opportunity to reflect
on where we are headed as a legislative body . . . to stand up and take
back the authority granted by the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the
American people we represent.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, never before has a Federal judge pled guilty to a
felony, gone to jail, and refused to resign immediately from the bench.
In a clear attempt to get every penny possible from American
taxpayers, Judge Kent, who pled guilty to obstruction of justice and is
currently in prison serving a 33-month sentence, submitted a letter to
the President resigning effective June 1, 2010.
The law does not require Judge Kent to step aside from the bench,
even though he is a convicted felon. Every day he remains in office he
receives his taxpayer-funded salary.
Congress has taken up this impeachment inquiry and moved quickly to
ensure that Judge Kent is removed from the bench. His continued
attempts to game the judicial system are just another example of how
Judge Kent has abused his position of authority.
Earlier this month, the House Impeachment Task Force heard testimony
from Judge Kent's two victims. His victims described the living
nightmare they experienced while working for him. They were subjected
to physical and verbal sexual abuse for years, ranging from lewd
comments to forced physical sexual conduct. Neither woman felt that she
could file a complaint without losing her job. Judge Kent warned all of
his staff that disloyalty was grounds for removal. It was his ability
to intimidate his staff into silence that perpetuated his abuse of
authority.
Today's vote is necessary to ensure that justice prevails. When a
judge is given a lifetime appointment, it is a tremendous honor and
responsibility. But when a judge takes advantage of his authority, he
must be held accountable for any violation of those principles of
justice.
Congress must put an end to Judge Kent's abuse of authority and
exploitation of American taxpayers.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the four articles of
impeachment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we would like to close on this side by
calling a senior member of the Judiciary

[[Page H7064]]

Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, who, in addition, is the serving
member of the Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee, the remaining
time on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is always a sad day when the
House has to impeach a Federal judge. Yet, today that is our
constitutional duty.
Impeachment is a power that Congress rarely uses; both because it is
rare that a Federal judge will so abuse his position that impeachment
is required, and because it could affect the independence of the
Judiciary. The Constitution reserves this extraordinary remedy for
extreme cases. This, regrettably, is one of those cases.
The task force that was established by this House to inquire into
whether Judge Kent should be impeached has recommended the articles of
impeachment that we are considering today.
We want to commend the members of the Task Force and the Chairman,
Mr. Schiff, for their independent, diligent and thorough investigation.
The evidence they've assembled is copious and sobering. They've made a
strong case that impeachment is both appropriate and necessary.
First, Judge Kent has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and
has been sentenced on his conviction to 33 months in prison.
As part of the plea proceedings, Judge Kent signed a statement in
which he admitted and described the conduct that constituted the
obstructive conduct. He adopted this signed statement under oath before
the court at the time of the plea.
In this signed statement, Judge Kent admitted making false statements
to a Special Investigatory Committee of the Fifth Circuit about
allegations of sexually assaulting court employee. In that same
document, he also admitted having ``nonconsensual sexual contact'' with
two subordinate court employees.
Two of the articles of impeachment allege that Judge Kent sexually
assaulted these two women. His admissions that he had nonconsensual
sexual contacts with the women is, indeed, a powerful one. Any unwanted
sexual touching can be considered a sexual assault, so Judge Kent, by
his own words, has come close to admitting that he assaulted the women,
the only remaining question being the extent of the assault, and that
question has been addressed by the sworn testimony of the women before
the Task Force detailing Judge Kent's repeated abuse of his authority
by coercing nonconsensual sex at the price of retaining their jobs.
In short, the executive branch may prosecute a Federal judge for
violation of the criminal laws, and the judicial branch may punish that
Federal judge upon his conviction, but only the Congress can remove a
Federal judge if it determines that his behavior renders him unfit to
hold his office.
In circumstances such as these, where Judge Kent misused the power of
his office to undermine, rather than to uphold, the law, and where he
abused his power as a Federal judge by sexually assaulting subordinates
and lying to the Fifth Circuit Investigatory Committee about that, our
duty to impeach is clear.
For these reasons, I intend to vote in favor of each of the articles
of impeachment now before the House. I urge all the Members of this
House to do likewise.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 520, to
impeach Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. Judge Kent has disgraced the bench, the
Bar, and the entire American public. Throughout his legal proceedings
he behaved with hubris and gross disregard for justice. Even after his
conviction for obstruction of justice, he has continued to exert a
manipulative demeanor and arrogance, thinking himself to be above the
law. There appears to be no end to his impudent demands, as even now,
he continues to draw his judicial salary while imprisoned. This is
unconscionable, and it was incumbent upon the House Judiciary Committee
and the entire House of Representatives to take decisive action.
Therefore, I applaud and commend Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member
Smith for their bipartisan efforts to bring this measure before the
floor so quickly.
The stability of any form of government rests on the rule of law.
Accordingly, our system, though imperfect, rests on the American
public's fundamental trust in our legal institutions and the rights the
Constitution bestows upon all U.S. citizens. Most important to any
justice system is broad legitimacy and acceptance of those who act
within the legal framework. People must believe they have access to a
fair trial, an impartial jury, and a neutral judge. Judges have the
duty to render well-reasoned and sound legal opinions, without bias and
personal prejudice. We expect individuals who hold a lifetime
appointment as a federal judge to act honestly out of respect for the
law.
Judge Kent's sexual assault of two female employees and his
subsequent efforts to lie about his actions to other federal judges
were reprehensible acts. This conduct is totally inconsistent with the
dignity and respect we expect from all federal judges.
Even though Judge Kent pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, he
continues to receive a salary for a job he is no longer suitable to
perform. And he will continue to collect federal wages unless we act
today and pass these articles of impeachment.
Every day Kent continues to draw his judicial salary is an affront to
our legal system and to the American taxpayers. This resolution signals
to Kent and others that no one is above the law--not even a federal
judge. That is a testament to the rule of law and goes to the very
essence of our justice system. The law must be blind, and everyone must
be subject to its consequences and punishments as well as to its
benefits and protections.
Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that Judge Kent has refused to
resign from office and that we are forced to take this action to remove
him from office. However, impeachment is provided for in the
Constitution for circumstances such as this. Therefore, I add my voice
of support for H. Res. 520 to impeach the disgraced Judge Samuel Kent,
and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution. I also hope our
colleagues in the other body will act with all deliberate speed to
remove this disgraced judge from the federal bench.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives Member for
Galveston, Texas, I have followed the case of Judge Samuel Kent with
great interest. My study of the facts of this case has convinced me
that the House Committee on the Judiciary made the correct decision in
recommending that Judge Kent be impeached. Unfortunately, because of a
commitment in my congressional district, I was only able to be on the
House floor for the vote on the first count. Had I been on the House
floor for the vote, I would have voted for all four counts of
impeachment. I hope the Senate expeditiously acts on this matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time having been yielded back, the Chair
will divide the question for voting among the four articles of
impeachment.
The question is on resolving the first article of impeachment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on resolving the first article of impeachment will be
followed by 5-minute votes, if ordered, on resolving each of the three
succeeding articles.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 389,
nays 0, not voting 44, as follows:

[Roll No. 415]

YEAS--389

[[Page H7065]]

Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--44

Ackerman
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Capuano
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Doyle
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Gonzalez
Harman
Higgins
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kline (MN)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
McGovern
Melancon
Neal (MA)
Posey
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Slaughter
Speier
Stearns
Sullivan
Tiahrt
Tierney
Velazquez
Welch
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.

{time} 1503

So the first article of impeachment was adopted.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on resolving the second
article of impeachment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 385,
noes 0, not voting 48, as follows:

[Roll No. 416]

AYES--385

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--48

Ackerman
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Capuano
Cassidy
Costello
Crenshaw
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Doyle
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Gonzalez
Harman
Higgins
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kline (MN)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
McGovern
Melancon
Murphy, Tim
Neal (MA)
Paul
Posey
Sanchez, Linda T.
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Slaughter
Speier
Stearns
Sullivan
Tiahrt
Tierney
Velazquez
Welch
Westmoreland
Yarmuth

[[Page H7066]]

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1510

So the second article of impeachment was adopted.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on resolving the third
article of impeachment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 417]

AYES--381

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--52

Ackerman
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Capuano
Cassidy
Costello
Crenshaw
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Doyle
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Gonzalez
Green, Gene
Harman
Heller
Higgins
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kline (MN)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
McGovern
Melancon
Murphy, Tim
Neal (MA)
Paul
Peterson
Posey
Rodriguez
Rooney
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Slaughter
Speier
Stearns
Sullivan
Tiahrt
Tierney
Velazquez
Welch
Westmoreland
Yarmuth

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.

{time} 1516

So the third article of impeachment was adopted.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on resolving the fourth
article of impeachment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 418]

AYES--372

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)

[[Page H7067]]

Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Watt

NOT VOTING--60

Ackerman
Baca
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Camp
Capuano
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Costello
Crenshaw
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Doyle
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Gonzalez
Green, Gene
Harman
Heller
Higgins
Hinchey
Jones
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kline (MN)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
McGovern
Melancon
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Neal (MA)
Paul
Posey
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Slaughter
Speier
Stearns
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Velazquez
Welch
Westmoreland
Woolsey
Yarmuth

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.

{time} 1521

So the fourth article of impeachment was adopted.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________