[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 93 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[House]
[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

     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
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     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

[[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

  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 381, 
noes 0, not voting 52, as follows:

                             [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

  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 372, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 60, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________