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 denying witness a who alleged of her activities -- or his activities with her and person b, that everything was consensual and person a is not telling the truth he did not have to proceed. so the court says, however if you accept -- if we accept your guilty plea this morning, each of those rights will be denied. 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

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's important for us to do that so 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 tyrarry a single day is injustice. while he sits incarcerated in a federal institution of confinement he's a judge. 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 obligations 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, and we have sufficient evidence presented on this record for all members to vote in favor of each and every article of impeachment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time and has 12 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized and has five minutes remaining. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased to recognize now the

gentleman from tennessee, a member of the task force and also the chair of the commercial and administrative law subcommittee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan will suspend for just a moment. the gentleman from michigan has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the chairman and the chairman of the task force and the ranking member of the committee and mr. sensenbrenner. this unquestionably has the facts that are obvious for this house to vote on 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 in his position, women that is an affront to all women in this country, and these are actions that are worthy of the vote of impeachment. that's 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's important that this house act, the senate have an opportunity to try this man and protect the public treasury and the public good. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield

four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, a member of the impeachment task force and former district judge from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. and i also want to thank the leadership and the very responsible conduct of the chairman of the task force, adam schiff, doing an exemplary job and bringing it to head as quickly as humanly can be done. and to chairman conyers and to 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 already been mentioned, pled guilty to obstruction of! he admitted to nonconsensual sexual acts. we have the transcript from the federal court hearings in which

there are actual specificity of misrepresentations. we also could take judicial notice of his orders and opinions that he wrote himself. it's very clear that as some of the witnesses testified he was arrogant, he was a bully, but that's not enough to impeach someone or remove them from office. but it's certainly on construction -- but certainly obstruction of justice would be under the circumstances here. what i found particularly offensive beyond the obstruction was the games that were played by this judge with this body. here the day before we were having our hearing of the task 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 res. ignition that could be with-- a resignation that could be withdrawn at anytime before it became effective. now, we heard testimony from the witnesses that this judge was particularly manipulative and that's 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'm the king and it's good to be king. it's good to be king unless you're 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 for 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 trusted care as a federal judge. we heard testimony that if someone had come before his court and use 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 a defendant. so even at this late date

there's no evidence of contriteness, there's no evidence of remorse other than being caught, there's 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's 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. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas' time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. we close our debate. we reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, who is the deputy ranking member of the

crime committee of the subcommittee and also a former judge from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i think a little history is in order here because only congress can remove a federal judge. it's 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. 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 of integrity and demeanor. in our judicial branch, i would hope we would always have the best legal minds on the bench, not those -- not the best legal minds that appear before the bench as attorneys. unfortunately, that's not univers