about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with ms. mcbroom and ms. wilkerson. worried about losing her job, ms. wilkerson was not initially candid when questioned about judge kent's conduct towards her. it was not only her third grand jury appearance that she was willing to reveal the sexual assaults she endured. on august 28, the federal grand báau 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, he knowingly and admitted to

having sexual contact with both women and obstructing justice in his testimony before the investigative committee. on may 11, judge kent was sent todd 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 investigative task force to inquire whether judge kent should be impeached and the committee received testimony from ms. mcbroom, ms. wilkerson and a judicial impeachment scholar. the professor provided expert testimony that concluded that making false statements as well as abusing his power as a federal judge to sexually assault women were independent gounds that would warrant judge kent's impeachment and removing from office. the task force invited judge kent to testify, but he

declined. we received correspondence that was made available to all members. the task force invited judge kent's counsel to present arguments on behalf of his client and provide the opportunity to question any of the witnesses and judge kent counsel declined to appear or participate. subsequently, judge kent counsel sent a letter questioning the veracity of the women and making the admission that their testimony was unnecessary because judge kent guilty plea to the felony obstruction presents sufficient grounds for impeachment. the task force received a letter from judge kent to the white house dated june 2, stating his intention to resign june 1, a year from now. this doesn't affect his current status as a federal judge and whether impeachment is warranted. our proceeding does not constitute a trial.

as the constitutional power to try impeachment resides in the senate. the house has rose to inquire whether the judge's conduct provides a sufficient basis for impeachment. according to leading commem tateors and precedent, there are two broad categories of conduct that justify impeachment, serious abuse of power and conduct that demonstrates that an official is unworthy to fill the office that he or she holds. earlier this month, the judicial conference of the united states transmitted the certificates of the house certifying its determination that consideration of impeachment of judge kent may be warranted. after concluding that the full record establishes that judge kent should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the judiciary task force voted unanimously in recommending four articles of impeachment. on june 10, the house judiciary committee ordered h. res. 520 favorably reported by roll call of 29-0.

judge kent, incident to his position as a u.s. district judge, engaged in deplorable conduct with respect to employees. such conduct is incompatible with the trust and confidences placed in him as a judge. judge kent sexually assaulted two employees of the court. he corruptly obstructed, influenceed an official proceeding by making false statements to the fifth circuit and making false and material statements to the agents of f.b.i. and department of justice. these acts of sexual assault and obstruction of justicer as the judge who sentenced judge kent stated, a stain on the justice itself. with the house of representatives to sit by and let the judge sit in prison while holding the office, it would be a stain on the congress as well. judge kent conduct was a

disgrace to the bench, that he would still cling to the bench from the confines of his prison cell and asked the public whose trust he has already betrayed to continue paying his salary demonstrate 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. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. smith smith i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, who is a rim of the impeachment task force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. 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 f.b.i., the department of justice and the fifth judicial circuit. the task force conducted a hearing on the matter, at which two court employees testified about the extent of their sexual abuse. at the same hearing, we heard

from a constitutional scholar who testified that judge kent's misconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. judge kent was invited to testify and 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 jish -- judiciary committee report, it merits the serious step of issuing articles of impeachment. the evidence shows he lied to the f.b.i. and department of justice about the nature of his sexual conduct with court employees. in addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of justice and repeating acts of 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 he is sitting in prison, collects to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of $174,000 per year, continues to collect his taxpayer-health benefits and continues to accrues his taxpayer-funded pension. this is the first time that a federal judge has pled guilty to a felony and reported to prison and still not resigned from his office. this shows how deep judge kent's audacity clearly runs. he sent a letter to the president explaining that he intends to resign one year from now. however, this purported resignation is not worth the paper it is written on, because nothing would prevent the judge from withdrawing his term before the end of the year. it 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 ask -- 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 of 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. i would like to thank chairman conyers and ranking member smith for their comprehensive,

yesterday expeditious and bipartisan consideration of these articles of impeachment in the full judiciary committee. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize -- does the gentlelady from texas seek to speak next? all right. i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, who served on the task force with great skill. and i also want to commend bob goodlatte for his services during that period of time. but sheila jackson lee, from houston, texas has been an anchor in the proceedings that have brought us to this stage.

and i yield to her five minutes. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i think it is important for all of us to recognize the solemnnyity of this day. i thank the -- sol tim -- so lemonyity of this day. -- solemnnyity of this day. i come from texas, houston, i think it's important to note that the judge, as all people in america may have, has his defenders. he will have an opportunity for those defenders to continue to raise their voice and to continue to emphasize their belief, as my colleague from texas indicated, that he had the -- he had debilitating

conditions, that he had faced a tragedy. 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, that there is the responsibility constitutionally to follow the law. so article two, 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 6 in the plea agreement we find language that says that this judge willingingly agreed he had obstructed justice. he admitted to falsely stating to the special investigative committee of the united states of the court of appeals for the fifth circuit lying to an official judicial body, that the ex-ternt of his unwanted

sexual contact was b was one kiss and when told that his advances were unwelcome, he then further said they were consensual, and that's to block person a from coming forward or having veracity or noin 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 3 indicates that judges must hold their position and they must iness sense be persons of good behavior. to create a workplace that does not allow the safety and security of your employee and in particular the witness, a and b, that poses a serious problem.

i'm making sure we track the constitutional road map 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 an obstruction of justice and he did it knowingly. i'd like a moment to just say that in the proceeding where he had to proceed with his plea, the court specifically said you have the right to persist in a prior plea of not guilty that you have entered in this case. in that event, the burden is entirely upon this government to prove your guilt. you don't have to go forward with this. and therefore to the 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 to prove anything at all, meaning the judge was questioned on his plea that involved the obstruction of justice, misrepresenting and@@@) as the defendant said yes, sir, and the court said, knowing that, is your intent to enter a plea of guilty to this charge? yes, sir. that was in essence a plea to a 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 dun the framework that we must

act. we have no further and no inability to ignore it. we must act. high crimes and misdemeanors, worthy behavior. all of them have been countered by a willing expression of this individual this judge, that he has committed this offense. so it is crucial that -- may i have an additional 30 seconds? it is crucial -- it is crucial that we proceed in moving on the articles of impeachment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner a member of the impeachment task force and former member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sensenbrenner: i would like to demand in a division of the

question so as to result in a accept rote -- a separate vote on the articles of impeachment. the speaker pro tempore: the article will be divided. mr. sensenbrenner: the overwhelming support is weighted in evidence against samuel b. kent. a federal grand jury indicted judge kent on three counts of inappropriate sexual conduct and one count of obstruction justice. he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice pursuant to a plea agreement. as 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, saying 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 his impeachment he was 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 the particulars concerning judge kent's request. on may 27, fifth circuit chief judge edith holland jones denied judge kent's request. the impeachment task force held an evidentiary hearing where both victims of judge kent's testified as witnesses. in addition to the two witnesses, allen baron, the lead tosk force attorney testified. as part of his statement, he identified and introduced in 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 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 exactively 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 he should not remain a federal judge. articles one and two 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 3 is an article that

incorporates some of the false and misleading statements made by judge kent to investigators in the grand jury. it notice he -- notes he obstructed an official proceedings. our hearing in the record we have compiled produces clear and convincing evidence he lied to law enforcement authorities during the investigation as well as to the federal grand jury. article 4 alleged he made material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with the victims, f.b.i. 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 caught 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 jusity by lying to cover his own misdeeds cannot remain a federal judge. he's 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 is the conduct alleged in the four articles of impeachment state an impeachable offense. absolutely and without question it does. the articles allege misconduct that's criminal and wholly inconsistent with judicial integrity and the judicial role. clearly everyone agrees that a

judge who lies to a judicial body investigating his conduct or deceives investigators by lying at an interview is not fit to remain on the bench. mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. sensenbrenner: the simple fact that judge kent police department get -- pled guilty shows it did occur. today he's sitting in a federal prison collecting a paycheck from taxpayers. he's not fit to sit on the judiciary and we must perform our constitutional duty to impeach him. support house resolution 520 and sent the judge to the senate for trial. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize 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. i recognize the gentleman for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, plmp. -- plmp. this is not -- mr. chairman. this is not a happy day, any time we have to take this type of solemn action. i first want to thank my chairman, the honorable john conyers of 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. we're at this point now because of the chairman.

i also want to recognize our colleague, mr. adam schiff, who , having been entrusted with the leadership to bring this to the floor has performed admirably. and i lastly want to thank complazzthi mcbroom and ms. donna wilkerson. these -- ms. cathy mcbroom and ms. donna wilkerson. these are the dailies who -- ladies who took the covers off this egregious behavior of judge kent. judge samuel kent's egregious behavior leaves no doubt that he is not fit to remain as a

judge. it's -- it's really -- how could we, or 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 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 you having to go through that. but, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a situation where the judge has committed sexual abuse repeatedly, he's lied about it, he's pleaded guilty to the felony charge of obstruction. 30 extra seconds, mr. chairman. mr. conyers: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. johnson: he lied about it and he plead guilty to committing sexual abuse. 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.

now we must do what we must do. and i urge all members to vote yes on the impeachment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, a member of the impeachment task force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, article 3, section 1 of the constitution in describing lifetime tenure of federal judges uses these words -- that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. that's the starting point of our inquiry here in this impeachment. when you look at the article 2, section 4 talking about impeachment it says, president, vice president, all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and commitment of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

some people mistakenly believe that he nude a criminal condition as a -- something that we need. 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's 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 to about the serious problems in his life. the 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. 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 review of the report presented by this committee will show