[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H179-H182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF JUDGE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 15) authorizing and directing the Committee on the 
Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas 
Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Louisiana, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 15

       Resolved, That in continuance of the authority conferred in 
     House Resolution 1448 of the One Hundred Tenth Congress 
     adopted by the House of Representatives on September 17, 
     2008, the Committee on the Judiciary shall inquire whether 
     the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the 
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Louisiana.
       Sec. 2.  The Committee on the Judiciary or any subcommittee 
     or task force designated by the Committee may, in connection 
     with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and 
     depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the 
     Committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena.
       Sec. 3.  There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary 
     to assist the Committee in conducting the inquiry under this 
     resolution until a primary expense resolution providing for 
     the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary for the first 
     session of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress is adopted. Any 
     of the amounts paid under the authority of this section may 
     be used for the procurement of staff or consultant services.
       Sec. 4. (a) For the purpose of the inquiry under this 
     resolution, the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
     require by subpoena or otherwise--
       (1) the attendance and testimony of any person (including 
     at a taking of a deposition by counsel or consultant of the 
     Committee); and
       (2) the production of such things;

     as it deems necessary to such inquiry.
       (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, after 
     consultation with the ranking minority member, may exercise 
     the authority of the Committee under subsection (a).
       (c) The Committee on the Judiciary may adopt a rule 
     regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or 
     consultant of the Committee, including pursuant to subpoena.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H. Res. 15.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 15 provides for a continuation of the authority 
provided in H. Res. 1448, as adopted by the House in the 110th 
Congress. H. Res. 15 states that in continuance of H. Res. 1448, the 
House directs the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the 
House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Sacramento, my Rules 
Committee colleague, has just said, this resolution will allow the 
Judiciary Committee to continue its very important oversight work by 
reauthorizing an investigation of G. Thomas Porteous.
  The committee's ongoing inquiry into his conduct and the question of 
whether to pursue impeachment by the House should continue in this 
111th Congress. This is a bipartisan ongoing effort. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, it is so utterly bipartisan and noncontroversial that our 
colleagues could very reasonably expect that this measure would have 
been considered by unanimous

[[Page H180]]

consent. Such widely supported procedural matters usually do not demand 
a formal debate.
  I certainly do hope that today's consideration of this resolution 
under suspension of the rules is not an indication that the Democratic 
leadership needs filler time for the schedule. I mean, it would be a 
little disconcerting to think that they have nothing more important to 
do in the House, just 1 week before this very, very important 
inauguration. So whatever the motivation of today's procedure, I do 
strongly support this measure.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this debate on this 
resolution that we're considering under suspension of the rules that, 
as I said, could be considered by unanimous consent, we know that the 
pressing issue for the American people right now is our effort to get 
our economy back on track. That's what so much of the talk is going on 
right here in Washington, and we know that virtually everyone across 
this country and, frankly, around the world, as we deal with this 
global economic downturn, virtually everyone is talking about what 
steps can be taken for us to get our economy back on track.
  And it would seem to me that, rather than taking time on a resolution 
such as this, which could have been considered by unanimous consent, 
that we should be moving ahead as expeditiously as possible with 
legislation that will, in fact, get our economy back on track.
  That's why I, on opening day, just a week ago today, in fact, I was 
proud to introduce a trio of bills that I believe very strongly, Mr. 
Speaker, will play a key role in getting our economy back on track.
  The first bill is known as the Fair and Simple Tax Plan. We all know 
about the complexity of the Internal Revenue code, and we regularly 
hear from our constituents about the level of frustration. And we all 
know that it is very time consuming and costly to deal with this 
complex code.
  The Fair and Simple Tax Plan is a package that I was privileged to 
work with the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani; former nominee 
for Governor in California, Bill Simon; former economic adviser to 
President George H.W. Bush, Michael Boskin at Stanford University, and 
several others. It is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that would take the six tax 
rates that we have today and compress them down to three rates. The top 
rate, Mr. Speaker, would be 10 percent on the first $40,000 in income, 
15 percent on income between $40 and $150,000, and a top rate of 30 
percent on all income above $150,000.
  Now, I believe that that kind of rate reduction would increase 
compliance and stimulate very important economic growth that the 
American people know is desperately needed as we deal with these tough 
economic times.
  This measure also has some other very important components that would 
take the complex Internal Revenue code and bring it down to a single 
page, one page. It does maintain, Mr. Speaker, some important 
provisions, like the ability for the American taxpayer to deduct the 
interest on their home mortgage; the ability, and we talked about the 
resolution earlier, encouraging volunteerism; the ability to continue 
to deduct the charitable contributions that people make as we encourage 
this level of volunteerism. Very important.
  It also maintains the important child credit and the provisions that 
have existed. And it expands incentives for retirement, and it includes 
a $15,000 exclusion to deal with the challenge that we have with health 
care. And that $15,000 could be utilized for the purchase of health 
insurance or direct health care costs, because we know what a pressing 
need that is that exists today.
  It also is important, if we're going to get our economy back on 
track, Mr. Speaker, and I wish that we were having a full debate on 
this issue right now, for us to, I believe, completely eliminate the 
inheritance tax, the so-called death tax.
  When you see people having to sell businesses, to sell homes, simply 
to comply with the Internal Revenue code, and I know that with that 
death tax, I believe that completely repealing that, nailing the coffin 
on the death tax is something that is very important.
  We also know, and today we got the news about the fact that we've 
seen an actual narrowing of the trade imbalance, we also know that one 
of the important things for us to do is to deal with the challenge of 
jobs leaving the United States and going overseas. And so that's why 
the Fair and Simple Tax Plan also reduces the top tax rate on job 
creators from 35 percent to 25 percent, and economists across the board 
have recognized that that would go a long way towards creating good 
jobs right here in the United States of America.
  We also know that the tax on capital has been very, very high and 
people are living with the threat of it possibly going up. And so the 
Fair and Simple Tax Plan brings about a reduction to 15 percent of that 
tax on capital gains. And not many people are witnessing capital gains 
at this point, but as we seek to get our economy back on track, I 
believe it's very important and that would be a key to helping us in 
our effort to do that.
  So this is, again, a very simple plan that I believe could 
dramatically stimulate economic growth and get to the kind of 
permanence that we need.
  I will say that I heard some remarks being made by our distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Conrad, in 
which he was referring to some of the concerns that he's had with this 
massive economic stimulus bill that is about to come before us. And one 
of the concerns that he raised as he talked about it being timely and 
targeted, that we--and temporary, those three Ts--that we do everything 
we can to ensure that. And he pointed to the fact that the notion of 
dramatically extending and making permanent the unemployment insurance 
would not be temporary. Making permanent COBRA provisions would not be 
temporary. Those are two issues that our colleague, Mr. Conrad, has 
raised as concerns.

  So I think that there's a lot of controversy swirling around this so-
called economic stimulus package, and I think that if we want it to be 
timely and temporary, these government spending programs, we need to 
spend time and effort focused on how we can permanently, permanently 
get our economy back on track.
  I mentioned the first of the trio of bills that I introduced a week 
ago today, Mr. Speaker. The second one is dealing with an important 
sector of our economy which we all know has played a key role in the 
downturn through which we're now going, and that is the housing 
industry. And we've seen huge sums of money pushed toward the housing 
industry right now, and I believe that one of the things that we need 
to do is to reward responsible behavior.
  Now, unfortunately, government policy has encouraged people to 
purchase homes with zero down, and have interest rates that are 
extraordinarily low; basically turning the home ownership, something 
that we very much want to encourage, into little more than homes into 
little more than rental units, creating incentive for people to walk 
away from them.
  So the second bill that I introduced, Mr. Speaker, is designed to 
incentivize people to responsibly have equity in their homes. One of 
the problems that we found is that as we see this credit crunch, it's 
been difficult for people to have what is now necessary for a down 
payment for those homes. And so the measure that I introduced, which, 
again, will encourage people not to walk away from their home and have 
equity in it, provides a $2,000 credit if one provides a, establishes a 
5 percent down payment, a $5,000 credit if they have a 10 percent down 
payment, and a $10,000 tax credit if they will put 15 percent down.
  Now, let's think about that. I mean, if someone puts 10 percent down 
on a $200,000 home, they automatically have $20,000 in equity and would 
be much less inclined to abandon that home as we've dealt with the 
challenges that we face out there.
  There is an inventory that needs to be addressed, of housing, that 
has yet to be purchased. We have neighborhoods that have been emptied, 
and I believe that this kind of incentive could again take this 
industry, which has played a role in the economic downturn, and 
actually, as has historically been the case, play a role in leading us 
back to economic strength.

[[Page H181]]

  And the third measure deals with the other industry, Mr. Speaker, 
that, as you know very well, we've spent a great deal of time talking 
about here; the administration has recently taken action on it, and it 
has to do with the automobile industry.
  Now, I will say that I'm not personally one who believes that we 
should be using the Tax Code to encourage the selection of winners over 
losers, but we know that both the housing industry and the auto 
industry have historically been very critical when it comes to moving 
back to economic strength. And so, having worked with a number of 
automobile dealers who, frankly, were here in December when we were 
having the debate in the 110th Congress on this issue, one of the 
things that was said to me was that we need to make sure that people 
are encouraged to get off the couch and into the showrooms to look at 
the purchase of automobiles.
  Now, we know, one dealer, a fellow called John Symes, about whom I've 
spoken here, a 60-year dealership in Southern California in the 
Pasadena area, a number of dealerships, has said that historically the 
ability to deduct the interest on automobile loans has been very, very 
helpful. Well, I don't know that we should go back to that. So, 
instead, the third bill that I introduced on this, Mr. Speaker, would 
do the following:
  We basically are saying that today we know that the sales tax, both 
State and local sales tax in States has been very high, and so we 
called for a credit that would allow an offset for the State and local 
sales tax to encourage people, again, to get into the showrooms to 
purchase automobiles, regardless of where those automobiles are from.
  I regularly like to say when people say, well, what about American-
made cars? And I ask the question somewhat rhetorically, what is an 
American-made car, Mr. Speaker? Is it a Ford manufactured in Canada 
with Mexican-made parts, or is it a BMW manufactured in South Carolina 
with American-made parts?
  And so I believe it is important for us to ensure that any 
automobile, any automobile would, in fact, qualify for this provision. 
So if someone's buying a $20,000 automobile and the sales tax is 8 
percent, that would be $1,600 right off the top. And we set that at the 
sales tax rate for January 1 of 2009.
  Both the housing and the automobile provisions, Mr. Speaker, apply 
for a 2-year period of time during which I'm convinced we can, in fact, 
see our economy grow.

                              {time}  1515

  The reason that I have raised these issues, Mr. Speaker, is that I 
believe, as we deal with a resolution like this one that could be 
brought up under unanimous consent, we should, instead, be debating and 
voting on measures like these three bills that were introduced last 
week. I know there are a wide range of other creative ideas that have 
come from Democrats and Republicans as well as to how we can deal with 
this.
  So I hope very much that we can take on this challenge and that we 
can ensure that whatever we provide in this economic stimulus package 
that it is, in fact, going to be a package that will get our economy 
back on track.
  I am very concerned at the reports that we have gotten of massive, 
massive spending, and I, again, congratulate our colleague Senator 
Conrad for pointing to the deficit as being an issue with which we are 
going to have to contend. If we want to have sustained and not 
temporary economic growth, I believe the best way that we can do that 
is to take steps to encourage greater and greater and greater private-
sector growth in our economy.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in support of this resolution. I 
hope very much that we can move ahead with it so that we will be able 
to deal with the pressing challenges that the American people have sent 
us here to address.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.
  Mrs. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 15, 
which I cosponsored with Chairman Conyers. This resolution provides 
continued authorization for an inquiry into whether U.S. District Judge 
G. Thomas Porteous should be impeached.
  The Constitution reserves the exclusive power of impeachment to the 
House of Representatives and the exclusive power to try all 
impeachments in the Senate. Any ``civil officer'' of the United States, 
including Federal judges, shall be removed from office if impeached and 
convicted of ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.''
  Only 13 Federal judges have been impeached during the past 219 years 
of our constitutional history. The House has exercised this prerogative 
sparingly in deference to judicial independence, one of the 
cornerstones of our republic.
  Chairman Conyers and I concluded last year that there is sufficient 
reason to initiate an impeachment inquiry regarding Judge G. Thomas 
Porteous, Jr., who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994.
  The basis for this resolution was largely developed by a Special 
Committee of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit. The findings of 
the Fifth Circuit were endorsed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, which 
notified the House of Representatives on June 18, 2008, of its 
determination that impeachment proceedings may be warranted.
  The materials submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the Judicial 
Conference are expansive and thorough. This led us to begin an 
impeachment inquiry last Congress pursuant to H. Res. 1448. However, 
our work is not yet complete. The resolution before us today is nearly 
identical to H. Res. 1448 and allows us to continue our investigation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Res. 15, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary 
to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge 
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution 
authorizing and directing the Judiciary to inquire into the matters 
concerning Judge Porteous and let it be a signal that this Congress is 
interested in understanding what truly transpired regarding the Judge 
in a bipartisan and impartial manner.
  Judge Porteous was a United States District Judge for Louisiana, and 
had been a judge of the Louisiana Judicial District Court from 1984 
before being appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 
District of Louisiana in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.
  Judge Porteous is well-known for his stance upholding the 
Constitution's separation of church and state and his judgments in 
defense of the first amendment right to free speech. He has 
controversially ruled in several landmark cases against the State, 
including one 2002 case in which he ruled that the State of Louisiana 
was illegally using Federal money to promote religion in its 
abstinence-only sex education programs. He ordered the State to stop 
giving money to individuals or organizations that ``convey religious 
messages or otherwise advance religion'' with tax dollars. He said 
there was ample evidence that many of the groups participating in the 
Governor's Program on Abstinence were ``furthering religious 
objectives.''
  Also, in 2002, Judge Porteous overturned a Federal ban on rave 
paraphernalia such as glowsticks, pacifiers, and dust masks, which are 
used at rave, electronic music concerts, where the use of Ecstasy is 
common.
  In 2001, Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy, which led to 
revelations in the press about his private life, specifically the fact 
that he was alleged to have had close ties with local bail bond magnate 
Louis Marcotte III, at the center of a corruption probe, which has more 
recently led to his being the subject of investigation himself by 
Federal investigators. In May 2006, Judge Porteous, beset by the recent 
loss of his wife and still under investigation by a Federal grand jury, 
was granted temporary medical leave and began a 6-month furlough from 
the Federal bench.
  On June 18, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States 
transmitted a certificate to the Speaker of the U.S. House of 
Representatives expressing the Conference's determination that 
consideration of impeachment of Judge Porteous might be warranted. The 
certificate stated that there was substantial evidence that Judge 
Porteous ``repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial 
disclosure forms under oath which concealed cash and things of value 
that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation 
before him. The certificate listed a series of ``abuses'' that 
constituted an abuse of judicial office in violation of the Canons of 
the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
  Late last year, I was selected to be one of the members of the House 
Judiciary Taskforce that will investigate Judge Porteous. 
Representatives Adam Schiff and Bob Goodlatte were designated as chair 
and ranking member to lead the taskforce conducting the inquiry.
  H. Res. 15 authorizes and directs the Committee on the Judiciary to 
inquire whether the House should impeach Judge Porteous. The resolution 
provides that the taskorce may, in

[[Page H182]]

connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and 
depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the committee, 
pursuant to notice or subpoena.
  Moreover, the resolution provides that there shall be paid out of the 
applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be necessary to 
assist the committee on the Judiciary in conducting the inquiry under 
this resolution. The committee is authorized to require by subpoenas or 
otherwise, the (1) the attendance and testimony of any person and (2) 
the production of such things as it deems necessary for the inquiry. 
Lastly, the resolution provides that the Committee may adopt a rule 
regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or 
consultant of the Committee.
  By bringing this resolution to the floor, we as Members of Congress 
demonstrate that we are concerned about taking the moral high ground 
and are concerned enough to investigate wrongdoing and allegations 
thereof when it affects anyone in a bipartisan manner--be the accused a 
Democrat or Republican. This resolution is an important first step to 
the beginning days of an administration that staked its campaign on 
change. Let us usher in change. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 15, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________