the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 389 and nays are zero.

the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the question is on resolving the second article of impeachment. those in favor say aye.. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. sensenbrenner: i ask for a recorded vote the speaker pro tempore: a a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 384 and nays are zero --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 385 and the nays are zero with zero having voted present. the second article of impeachment is adopted and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the question is on resolving the third articles of impeachment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. sensenbrenner: i demand a recorded vote the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 381, and the nays are zero. the article 3 of the combreefment is adopted. the question is on resolving the fourth article of impeachment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the vice it. mr. sensenbrenner: mr. speaker, i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on the nays are zero. the fourth article of impeachment is adopted and

without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 565, resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment of samuel b. kent, a judge of the united states district court for the southern district of texas. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence

requested for mr. capuano, mr. defazzo, mr. fattah today after 1:00 p.m., mr. kanjorski of pennsylvania for today after 12:00 noon, mr. shadegg of arizona for today, and mr. welch of vermont after 2:00 p.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the personal requests are granted. does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i do. mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for purposes about inquiring next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday and thursday at 10:00 a.m. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will consider several bills under suspension of the bills. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. in addition, mr. speaker, we will consider h.r. 2892, the 2010 homeland security appropriations act and the 2010 environment appropriations act. we will consider the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010. i yield back. >> well, i thank the gentleman and i just like to ask him that he noticed two appropriation bills for next week, the homeland security and the

interior. and i was just wondering if the gentleman can tell us, will he believe about next week's process be in terms of amendments, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. two appropriation bills or two of the 12 appropriation bills that is my intention to see us send to the senate by the end of next month. obviously, as the gentleman knows, the fiscal year ends on october -- or september 30, and, therefore, in order for us to get these bills completed and do them individually rather than bundle them in an apple bus which i think is a far preferable process, it's necessary for us to move these bills in a timely fashion. the rules, therefore, will try to accommodate both the members and the time frame and the time constraints that we confront. i will say to the gentleman we tried to reach over the last 2

1/2 months some agreement on time constraints. indeed, i tried to have a choice of amendments by your side with -- after we reached a time agreement. we were, as the gentleman knows, unable to reach such agreement. in fact, i was told by your leadership that no such agreement was possible. in 2004 on the bill that we did yesterday when the majority was then your side of the aisle there were 16 amendments in total. up to the bill we did yesterday. 10 by republicans. of course, it was your bill, you were in charge, and six amendments offered by democrats. we ask for preprinting of amendments so we would have some idea what amendments would be pending and your side filed 102 amendments. that is more amendments total

than were filed by either party in 2004, 2005, 2006. so that it was clear that given if we had a rule that provided for the five-minute rule with 434 members having the right to five minutes on each amendment that it would have been impossible to finish that bill much less 12 bills by the end of july, very frankly. so that ultimately we had to do a structured rule to accommodate doing the people's business in a timely fashion. i'm sorry that we couldn't reach agreement. there had been no further discussions although i did talk to mr. cantor, who is not here today or at least not here this afternoon. i did talk to him on a number of occasions about this as recently as the night that we went to the rules committee to get the structured rule. and i have not heard from him

with respect to -- or from mr. boehner with respect to any option available to him available for time constraints. mr. obey had a colloquy with mr. lewis on the floor on the rule that was essentially an open rule. and the colloquy essentially asked by mr. obey, can we reach time agreements, and mr. lewis responded, i'm afraid my conference might very well have a revolution on its hands and you might have a new ranking member in which he indicated that time constraints were not possible. therefore, i say to my friend from california that we are considering a rule which will do as i said allow us to consider amendments on substance but allow us to do so in a time frame that may well be shorter than has been the

case in the past. let me say to you that when we last considered the commerce, justice, science bill in 2006 when your side was in charge, you got a unanimous agreement from obey on time constraints. those time constraints provided for consideration of approximately 17 hours on the bill. in 2007 we got not time constraints but about the same amount of time. now, unfortunately, after we thought in 2007 we were going to have agreement to do about the same time that we gave to you when you were in the majority notwithstanding that we went 50 hours over. now, 50 hours in terms of legislative time is at least two weeks of time unless, of course, you have a day like yesterday. yesterday. but in terms of a normal day