Impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad day and a solemn day. As indicated by my colleagues on the floor of the House, however, it is an obligation of this body. I'd like to acknowledge the chairman of the Impeachment Task Force, Congressman Schiff, for his leadership,

but also for his balance and temperament in a very serious challenge that we have in providing the guideposts and the moral guideposts for a number of tough issues that deal with our Federal Judiciary and a number of other instances where impeachment is in fact the authority of this body and the Constitution. I'd like to acknowledge the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte; the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Conyers; and the ranking member, Mr. Smith.

This is an instance where you would have hoped that we would have had a different outcome. But as my colleagues have so articulately expressed, there was a long pattern that many of us found very disturbing. Judge Thomas Porteous seemingly began these actions without reproof while he was a State district judge, soliciting and accepting cash and other things of values from attorneys practicing before him, and failing to recuse himself from a prominent case in which those attorneys were involved.

As a State judge, he repeatedly accepted things of value from bail bondsmen in exchange for setting bonds at levels to increase profits for the bail bondsmen and, after becoming a Federal judge, assisting them in forming corrupt relationships with other State judges. The pattern continued.

As a Federal judge, he fraudulently concealed his personal bankruptcy, income, assets, gambling activities, gambling debts, and in violation of court order, incurring additional gambling debt while his bankruptcy proceeding was pending.

He fraudulently concealed, in his FBI background check and on his Senate questionnaire, the corrupt relationships with attorneys and bail bondsmen.

I think it is worth noting that Judge Porteous began his career as a State court judge, but because of the concealment of these activities, he was then nominated to the Federal bench. In the essence of being nominated, let me be very clear, one could have personally taken one's self out of the running for a bench as high and as sacred as a Federal Judiciary. That is a lifetime appointment, but at no time during the time that his nomination was put before the President of the United States, the United States Senate, did Judge Porteous think that his previous behavior did not warrant him ascending to the Federal bench. That saddens me. Maybe we need to look more at counseling individuals who are seeking or have the opportunity to be nominated to these high offices. Maybe they need that to understand the flaws or failures in their character or performance.

Again, fraudulently concealing in his FBI background check and on his Senate questionnaire the corrupt relationships with the attorneys and bail bondsmen, evidence that the committee was able to see when questions were asked whether there was anything in your background that would warrant you not being able to be appointed to the Federal bench, this judge did not answer truthfully.

The Department of Justice attempted to reprimand, and their complaint indicated that the instances of Judge Porteous' dishonesty in his own sworn statements and court filings, his decade-long course of conduct in soliciting and accepting streams of payments and gifts from litigants and lawyers with matters before him, and his repeated failure to disclose those dealings to interested parties and the court all render him unfit as an Article III judge, that is, a Federal judge.

Although the Department did not seek criminal charges for reasons that involve partly the statute of limitations, their complaint indicated that his actions would render him unfit as an Article III judge. The Fifth Circuit also moved to take the maximum disciplinary action allowed by law against Judge Porteous, suspending him for 2 years or until Congress takes final action on the impeachment proceedings.

Unfortunately and sadly, that day has come, and as we had asked, through the task force, for the opportunity for Judge Porteous to have due process, and that is to give him the opportunity to speak before the task force and, the alternative, to allow witnesses to come on his behalf, none of that was accepted. So today I rise on the floor of the House to accept the findings of our task force and the vote of our committee in full and ask this body to address the concern by sending this to the United States Senate for hearings on impeachment. This is a resolution to suggest that the Articles of Impeachment should be passed to the United States Senate under our constitutional process.

Again, this is a sad day and a solemn day. But sadly, this indicates that a behavior of an individual who has achieved one of the highest offices in the land, that is, of the Article III courts, judge for life on the Federal bench, deserves, if you will, to be recommended for impeachment.

I ask for a vote of ``yes'' on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res 1031, a resolution setting forth four Articles of Impeachment against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. I would like to thank our Judiciary Chairman Conyers for shepherding this bill through the Judiciary Committee so that justice can be served.

The Judiciary Committee was charged with determining whether federal Judge Thomas Porteous should be impeached for the following: soliciting and accepting cash and other things of value from attorneys practicing before him and failing to recuse himself from a prominent case in which those attorneys were involved; as a State judge, repeatedly accepting things of value from bail bondsmen in exchange for setting bonds at levels to increase profits for the bail bondsmen and, after becoming a federal judge, assisting them in forming corrupt relationships with other State judges; as a federal judge, fraudulently concealing, in his personal bankruptcy, income, assets, gambling activities, and gambling debts and, in violation of court order, incurring additional gambling debt while his bankruptcy proceeding was pending; and fraudulently concealing, in his FBI background check and on his Senate questionnaire, the corrupt relationships with the attorneys and bail bondsmen.

As a federal judge, Judge Thomas Porteous's number one responsibility under the oath that he is sworn to is to ensure that the laws of the land under the United States Constitution are protected and supported. The Justice Department investigated whether or not Judge Porteous broke his oath. In May 2007, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation completed a multi-year criminal investigation of Judge Porteous and submitted a formal complaint of judicial misconduct to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Although the Department decided not to seek criminal charges for reasons including statute of limitations issues and other factors impacting prosecution, the complaint stated that the investigation uncovered evidence that ``indicates that Judge Porteous may have violated federal and state criminal laws, controlling canons of judicial conduct, rules of professional responsibility, and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all federal judges.'' The complaint concluded that ``the instances of Judge Porteous's dishonesty in his own sworn statements and court filings, his decade-long course of conduct in soliciting and accepting a stream of payments and gifts from litigants and lawyers with matters before him, and his repeated failures to disclose those dealings to interested parties and the Court all render him unfit as an Article III judge.''

Mr. Speaker, there was also an investigation by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigatory Committee to investigate the allegations. Hearings were held at which Judge Porteous, representing himself, made statements, cross-examined witnesses, and called witnesses on his own behalf. Based on the Special Committee's report concluding that Judge Porteous had engaged in conduct which might constitute grounds for impeachment, the Judicial Conference voted unanimously to certify the matter to the U.S. House of Representatives, based on substantial evidence that Judge Porteous had repeatedly committed perjury, willfully and systematically concealed information from litigants and the public, violated several criminal statutes and ethical canons, and made false representations with the intent to defraud.

The Fifth Circuit also moved to take the maximum disciplinary action allowed by law against Judge Porteous, suspending him for two years or ``until Congress takes final action on the impeachment proceedings.''

As Members of the House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force, my colleagues were directed by the House to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to impeach Judge Porteous for the alleged crimes for which he was being charged. As part of the initial investigation, our staff interviewed over 65 individuals, deposed approximately 25 witnesses under oath, and obtained documents

from various sources, including from witnesses, the 24th Judicial Court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and the Department of Justice.

After the initial investigatory phase, the task force held four separate hearings over five days in November and December 2009 in order to determine whether Judge Porteous's conduct provides a sufficient basis for impeachment and to develop a record upon which to recommend whether to adopt Articles of Impeachment.

The first task force hearing focused on allegations of misconduct in relation to Judge Porteous presiding over the case In re: Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. The record reflects that Judge Porteous was engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the law firm of Amato & Creely, that he failed to disclose his relationship with the firm, and that he denied a motion to recuse himself from the case despite the firm's representation of one of the parties. The kickback scheme involved appointing Mr. Creely as a curator in hundreds of cases, with fees amounting to approximately $40,000 paid to the Amato & Creely firm, approximately half of which was paid back to Judge Porteous. Judge Porteous made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing, intended to minimize the extent of this personal relationship with the firm. The record also reflects that Judge Porteous engaged in corrupt conduct after the bench trial and while the case was under advisement, by soliciting and accepting things of value from attorneys at the firm, including $2,000 in cash. This corrupt relationship and his conduct as a federal judge have brought his court into scandal and disrepute and demonstrate that he is unfit for office.

The second task force hearing focused on allegations that Judge Porteous repeatedly made false and misleading statements, including the concealment of debts, under oath and in disregard of a bankruptcy court's orders. The record reflects that as a federal judge, he knowingly and intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury and repeatedly violated a court order in his case. This included using a false name and post office box to conceal his identity as a debtor in the case; concealing assets, preferential payments to certain creditors, and gambling losses and debts; and incurring new debts while the case was pending in violation of the court's order.

The third task force hearing focused on allegations that Judge Porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman Louis Marcotte and his sister Lori. The record reflects that as part of this corrupt relationship, Judge Porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, and home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions to improperly benefit the Marcottes. This included setting, reducing, and splitting bonds for the Marcottes while on the State bench, and improperly setting aside or expunging felony convictions for two Marcotte employees. Judge Porteous also used the power and prestige of his office to assist the Marcottes in forming relationships with State judicial officers and others. Judge Porteous also knew and understood that Louis Marcotte made false statements to the FBI in an effort to assist his appointment to the federal bench.

Fourth Hearing--False and Misleading Statements in Confirmation; Expert

Views

At the fourth hearing, the Task Force received testimony from a panel of constitutional scholars on whether Judge Porteous's conduct renders him unfit to hold office and provides a sufficient basis for impeachment. The scholars considered not only allegations that were the subject of the previous hearings, but also the record reflecting that Judge Porteous had knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the U.S. Senate and to the FBI in connection with his nomination to the federal bench in order to conceal corrupt relationships. In addition, Judge Porteous knew that another individual made false statements to the FBI in an effort to assist his appointment to the federal bench. Judge Porteous's failure to disclose these corrupt relationships deprived the U.S. Senate and the public of information that would have had a material impact on his confirmation. The panel of experts testified that making these materially false statements. clearly constituted impeachable conduct, as did the conduct established in the previous task force hearings.

The task force invited Judge Porteous to testify, but he declined the offer. In addition, the task force afforded the opportunity for Judge Porteous and his counsel to request that the task force hear from a witness or witnesses that they wish to call. Judge Porteous's counsel informed the task force that they did not wish to avail themselves of that opportunity. The task force permitted Judge Porteous's counsel to participate in the hearings on behalf of his client and to question the witnesses. This was an extraordinary prerogative that was granted to counsel.

After the task force concluded that the full record established that Judge Porteous should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, we met on January 21st and unanimously voted in favor of recommending four Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. These Articles were subsequently introduced in the House in the form of H. Res. 1031. On January 27th, the House Judiciary Committee individually approved each Article unanimously and ordered H. Res. 1031 favorably reported by a rollcall vote of 24-0.

Mr. Speaker, today we must determine whether we fulfill our duty to uphold the laws of the Constitution and allow justice to be served or whether we will condone what has been determined by my colleagues on the judiciary committee as impeachable actions. As a member of the Impeachment Task Force, I had an opportunity to see firsthand the evidence that was presented in this case and believe that Judge Porteous should be impeached for his actions.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 1031 and urge my colleagues to join me in upholding the laws of our great nation.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Friday, if needed, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow, as is the custom.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H. Con. Res. 248, the Afghanistan war powers resolution introduced by Mr. Kucinich, and we will also consider H. Res. 1031, impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It is also possible there will be further action on the jobs agenda, which depends on what the Senate or the House has coming out of committee or out of the Senate.

We believe that the number one priority for us is to continue to grow the economy so that we will create jobs in this economy. As the gentleman knows, my perception is we have gone from losing an average of 726,000 jobs in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, to the last 3 months of losing, on average, 35,000 jobs. That is 95 percent in the right direction, but we need to continue to create jobs.

As you know in the bill that was just passed, which was passed in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate and to some degree here, we are trying to encourage the hiring of those who are unemployed through giving tax credits, and also tried to spur investment by giving businesses the right to write off items. We also ensure the continuation of the Highway Act; and in addition to that, as you know, we provided for a less expensive way for communities to expand public works and hire people to do that, public buildings and construction of public facilities.

So when I say the agenda, that was obviously a part of the agenda. We still are very concerned about lending, capital being available to small, particularly, but medium-sized businesses as well. The Senate is considering a jobs bill now, as you know, with a number of component parts. So when I talk about the jobs agenda, I am talking about ways and means and efforts to grow the economy and create jobs.

Would the gentleman yield?

Just for accuracy, it's my understanding that the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has introduced is by December 31, I believe, not 30 days. And I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, I've expressed support for the policy being pursued by President Obama, and I certainly intend to continue to support that policy. The resolution is not consistent with that. So I think the gentleman is not going to be surprised at my expectation that this will be a bipartisan vote--perhaps on both sides of the proposition, yea and nay, but I certainly think it's going to be a bipartisan vote.

I believe the President's policy that he has articulated is a thoughtful, measured policy. And very frankly, I think he has done what perhaps we should have been doing for some period of time, focused on where terrorism was organized against the United States to ensure that we eliminate al Qaeda and prevent the Taliban from resurgence and reestablishing a base wherefrom terrorists might attack us. I think that is an appropriate policy that the President is pursuing, and I would hope that the House would support that policy on both sides of the aisle.

We hope that the budget resolution will come to the floor--and we're working on that--by the end of the month before we leave for the Easter break.

As you can well imagine, given the fiscal situation that confronts us, that's a very difficult document to put together. But Mr. Spratt is working very hard at that with the committee. I know Mr. Ryan, I'm sure, the ranking member, is also working hard on that. I am hopeful that we will be in a position to bring that to the floor before the Easter break.

It is the President's hope and our hope that that will be the case. As you know, the President has expressed that objective, and we have said that would be our objective as well.

As you know, we have been working on this issue for well over a year. We passed a bill many months ago; the Senate passed a bill over 2 months ago. Many of us have been working on that bill. As you know, we had a very substantial--historic, really, in many respects--discussion with the President at Blair House last week. I understand the President has incorporated a number of ideas that he felt were good ideas that Republicans put on the table at that meeting.

My expectation is we will be moving on this bill in the near future. And what I mean by that is, again, hopefully, that we would be able to consider this prior to the April break, the Easter break.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, we provided for reconciliation in the budget resolution that was adopted last year, so that is available to us. That has been used 22 times, as the gentleman knows, since 1980; 16 of those times it was used when your party was in the majority. You utilized that to do what the American people think is usually the case: we pass things by majority vote, up or down, and the majority rules. Now, here, of course, when the majority rules, it really does represent a majority of the country. In the Senate, of course, even when a majority votes, it doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the people of the country because obviously every State, no matter how large or small, is represented.

But having said that, we believe that the Republicans, when you used it for a tax bill or welfare or other very important pieces of legislation--the tax bill obviously having trillions of dollars of economic impact on the economy--you felt that that process of passing it by a majority vote in the United States Senate made sense. We share your view.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me repeat, his 180 was incorporated as a way to go forward last year when we adopted the budget almost 1 year ago. So this is nothing new for the gentleman.

I told the gentleman his party has used this procedure 16 times out of 22 times that it has been used, which means your party has used it two-thirds of the time--over two-thirds of the time--that it's been employed. As a matter of fact, Judd Gregg, a Member of your party, a leader of the Budget Committee on your side, was chairman of the Budget Committee, now ranking member, when an objection was raised on that-- we're using quotes--when an objection was raised to that said, as he turned to the Democratic side, ``What's wrong with a majority vote? I thought a majority vote was what should prevail.'' That was Judd Gregg of your party. I think it's ironic when we're saying, okay, you think a majority vote is good, we'll take a majority vote.

Now, the President's quote is a demonstration that we all say things that, unfortunately, then don't become reality. Well, I will tell you the reason they don't become reality is because, as Jim DeMint said, I think many of your party hope this is President Obama's Waterloo. That's a direct quote--you used quotes--from Mr. DeMint.

Your belief is, in my view--I do not attribute it to you--but my belief is, as Mr. Gingrich pointed out over and over again, if we fail, you win. The problem is if we fail, we believe the American people lose, and we think that is not fair.

I want to use one more quote and then I will cease and yield back to you. October of 2008, Presidential campaign debate, national television, John McCain, your candidate, said, ``I want to see a plan that gives all Americans, all families availability of affordable health care.'' That was a quote that Senator McCain, your candidate for President, made just a few months ago. It was almost exactly what Mr. Obama said. So, from my perception, there was a consensus with respect to where we needed to go.

As a matter of fact, I think almost every Member on this floor believes that we need to reform the health care system. We've had a very vigorous debate, a very open debate, a very transparent debate over 1 year now on how this ought to be done. We have disagreement, and that is the nature of democracy. But if a majority of the representatives in this body and the majority of the representatives in the other body believe a policy ought to be adopted, then, frankly, that is the way our system should work.

There is nothing in the Constitution, as the gentleman well knows, about having--except for some rare instances--a supermajority, and certainly none on policy. There are on confirmations and overriding a President's veto, but other than that, the perception is the majority vote rules.

So it's a procedure that you used, and it's a procedure that we anticipated last March. We hoped that wouldn't be the case. Very frankly, we would hope that we could work in a bipartisan way to effect this end that at this point hasn't been possible, and Senator McConnell has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of participating in that kind of effort.

I yield back to my friend.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are still discussing exactly what procedure will be employed to effect a majority vote in both Houses and send something to the President in the same form, so I can't specifically answer that question at this particular time.

But let me say to the gentleman, he mentioned the forum we went to, and Republicans did put ideas on the table. We thought they were constructive. As a matter of fact, as you may recall, I responded to Senator Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, when we mentioned about fraud, waste and abuse. As you know, there is substantial investment in both the House bill and the Senate bill to eliminating fraud, waste and abuse. Senator Coburn observed he thought there was a lot of money that could be saved there. We think that is the case as well, so we have provided to go after that.

We also, I think, agree that reform ought to be based on a private, market-based system. As the gentleman knows, the exchanges that are set up both in the House bill and the Senate bill, they differ; but they are both based on private sector competition by private insurance companies.

We talked about wellness programs. Dr. Coburn also talked about that as did others. I think Dr. Boustany, Congressman Boustany, also talked about that.

We have a very substantial investment in wellness and, as Dr. Coburn pointed out, in practices that give cooperative care and are not reimbursed piecemeal but are reimbursed by the quality of care that is given, by the outcomes that are given as opposed to simply being process-oriented.

We also agree, I think, Mr. Cantor, on mechanisms to have competition across State lines. We believe the exchanges do that, but we also believe there is room for discussion in looking at how we might do that in other ways as well. So we think that that's an idea, and the pooling with respect to small businesses so they can create large groups so that they can have better competitive advantages. We believe that, when we put small businesses into the exchange, that's exactly what we give them.

For instance, in a large group, as all of us know and as we have in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, we don't have preexisting conditions, because we are a large group. Most large groups don't. In the legislation you offered as a substitute to ours, of course, you did not cover preexisting conditions. Your legislation provided for about 3 million people having greater access to the system; ours for about 30 million. So, while we agree that we ought to have people have access, frankly, we believe that what we have proposed provides greater access.

Insurance pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices, it seems to me we agreed on that as an objective. You disagree with the way we have done it in terms of our exchanges, which is, of course, what the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan is that you and I participate in. It's a large exchange with many different insurers. In our area, we have about 25 or 26 different options that we can choose from. For the most part, they're private sector. As a matter of fact, for all parts, they're private sector to choose from.

So, yes, we have differences, but as I've told you before, I'm still prepared to discuss with you and to work with you on suggestions you have that get us to an objective that we think is appropriate.

Let me just lastly, in closing, say a recent polling shows a majority wants to keep working. You indicate, as you do on a regular basis, that there are polls that show people are against this bill. My view is what they are really against is this confrontation and contention regarding these bills, which is, of course, why the President said he thought having 60 percent would give a greater level of confidence. I agree with that. I would hope that we would have created that kind of consensus.

I want to read to you: 63 percent in a Washington poll said that we ought to pass comprehensive health reform; 57 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. February 22, 2010, Kaiser poll also finds overwhelming support for key elements of the reforms in our bill; 76 percent support reforming the way health insurance works in our bill; 71 percent support creating a health insurance exchange, which is in our bill; and 70 percent support expanding high-risk insurance pools.

So, when you go to the individual elements of our bill, we find very significant support for those individual elements, I tell my friend. I continue to look forward to working with my friend to reach common ground.

I thank the gentleman, and want to commend the leadership of Chairman Conyers in bringing this matter to conclusion here on the House floor and for all your leadership on the committee, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, today we again 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 would welcome, however it is an important responsibility entrusted to us by the Founders and one that we cannot shrink from.

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, which has only been used 14 times in our Nation's history. Regrettably, the matter before us today warrants its use once again.

The House of Representatives directed the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment to inquire into whether Judge Porteous of the Eastern District of Louisiana should be impeached. As Chair 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.

I want to thank each of the members of the task force that worked on the matter, and in particular the ranking member, Bob Goodlatte, for his extraordinary work. Together we have tried to ensure that we proceed in a fair, open, and deliberate manner, and this has been done in a bipartisan, really nonpartisan, basis.

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., was appointed to the Federal bench in 1994 and has served in the New Orleans Courthouse in the Eastern District of Louisiana. After a multiyear FBI and Federal grand jury investigation, the Department of Justice in May 2007 submitted a complaint referring allegations of judicial misconduct.

The complaint noted that the department had determined not to seek criminal charges for reasons including the statute of limitations and other factors impacting prosecution, but the complaint stated that the investigation uncovered evidence of pervasive misconduct and evidence that Judge Porteous may have violated Federal and State criminal laws controlling canons of judicial conduct, rules of professional responsibility, and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all Federal judges.

After an extensive disciplinary proceeding in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, at which Judge Porteous, representing himself, made statements, cross-examined witnesses, and called witnesses on his own behalf, the Judicial Conference of the United States voted unanimously to refer this matter to the House of Representatives based on substantial evidence of conduct that individually and collectively brought disrepute to the Federal judiciary. The Fifth Circuit also moved to take the maximum disciplinary action allowed by law against Judge Porteous, suspending him for 2 years or until Congress takes final action on the impeachment proceedings.

As a part our initial investigation, Impeachment Task Force staff interviewed over 65 individuals, deposed about 25 witnesses under oath, obtained documents from various sources, including from witnesses, the 24th Judicial Court in Jefferson Parish, and the Department of Justice.

After the initial investigatory phase, the task force held four separate evidentiary hearings over 5 days in November and December of 2009 in order to determine whether Judge Porteous' conduct provides a sufficient basis for impeachment and to develop a record upon which to recommend whether to adopt articles of impeachment.

Our first hearing focused on allegations of misconduct in relation to Judge Porteous presiding over the case In re: Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. The record reflects that Judge Porteous was engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the law firm of Amato & Creely, that he failed to disclose his relationship with the firm, and that he denied a motion to recuse himself from the case, despite the firm's representation of one of the parties. The kickback scheme involved appointing Mr. Creely as a curator in hundreds of cases, with fees amounting to approximately $40,000 paid to the Amato & Creely firm, approximately half of which was then paid back to Judge Porteous. Judge Porteous made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the extent of his personal relationship with the firm.

The record also reflects that Judge Porteous engaged in corrupt conduct after the bench trial and while the case was under advisement by soliciting and accepting things of values from attorneys at the firm, including $2,000 in cash. This corrupt relationship and his conduct as a Federal judge have brought his court into scandal and disrepute and demonstrates that he is unfit for office. Our investigation also uncovered evidence that his solicitation and acceptance of things from Creely & Amato were not isolated events limited to two attorneys, but a pattern of using his perch on the Federal bench to extract and to receive things of value from attorneys and parties in front of him.

Our second hearing focused on allegations that Judge Porteous repeatedly made false and misleading statements, including the concealment of debts, under oath and in disregard of a bankruptcy court's orders. The record reflects that as a Federal judge he knowingly and intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury and repeatedly violated a court order in his case. This included using a false name and post office box to conceal his identity as a debtor in the case; concealing assets, preferential payments to certain creditors, and gambling losses and debts; as well as incurring new debts while the case was pending, all in violation of the court's order.

Our investigation also uncovered further evidence of his willful efforts to conceal his financial situation and the extent of his gambling over the years. Taken together, it is clear that his false statements and the bankruptcy proceedings were not the result of an oversight or mistake, but reflected instead an effort to conceal his financial affairs and his gambling.

Our third hearing focused on allegations that Judge Porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman Louis Marcotte and his sister Lori. The record reflects that as part of this corrupt relationship, Judge Porteous solicited and received numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit while at the same time taking official actions on behalf of the Marcottes. This included setting, reducing, and splitting bonds for the Marcottes while on the State bench, and improperly setting aside or expunging felony convictions for two Marcotte employees.

Judge Porteous used the power and prestige of his office to assist the Marcottes in forming relationships with other State judicial officers and others. Judge Porteous also knew and understood that Louis Marcotte made false statements to the FBI in an effort to assist his appointments to the Federal bench.

At our fourth and final hearing, we received testimony from a panel of constitutional scholars on whether Judge Porteous' conduct renders him unfit to hold office, and provided a sufficient basis for impeachment. The record reflects that Judge Porteous knowingly made false material statements about his past to both the U.S. Senate and the FBI in connection with his nomination to the Federal bench in order to conceal corrupt relationships.

In addition, Judge Porteous knew that another individual made false statements to the FBI in an effort to assist his appointment to the Federal bench. Judge Porteous' failure to disclose these corrupt relationships deprived the U.S. Senate and the public of the information that would have had a material impact on his confirmation. Our panel of experts testified that such behavior clearly constitutes impeachable conduct.

I'd like to note that the task force invited Judge Porteous to testify, but he declined our offer. In addition, the task force afforded the opportunity for Judge Porteous and his counsel to request that the task force hear from a witness or witnesses that they wish to call. Judge Porteous' counsel informed the task force that they did not wish to avail themselves of that opportunity. The task force permitted Judge Porteous' counsel to participate in our hearings on behalf of his client, and he was permitted to question the witnesses. This was an extraordinary prerogative that was granted to counsel.

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 Porteous' 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.

After concluding that the full record establishes that Judge Porteous should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the Impeachment Task Force met in late January and unanimously voted in favor of recommending four Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the Judiciary Committee. On January 27, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in favor of each article and to favorably report H. Res. 1031 to the full House. A 147-page report has been filed detailing the inquiry for Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Porteous engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge. His longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct, so utterly lacking in honesty or integrity, demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a U.S. District Court judge. His material false statements about his past, made knowingly to both the U.S. Senate and to the FBI in order to obtain his Federal office, deprived the Senate and the public of information that would have had a material impact on his confirmation. Accordingly, I urge the House to approve the Articles of Impeachment included in House Resolution 1031.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to ask the gentleman if he can give us some better indication of what he means by the jobs agenda.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman refers to some areas that I hope he and the majority would work with the minority on in trying to do exactly as he stated, which is to create an environment for small businesses to create jobs. As the gentleman just saw in the vote taking place on the floor today, there were 35 members of his caucus who voted against the so-called jobs bill that was on the floor today, perhaps indicating that the gentleman may want to work with us as we have been continuing to propose tax cuts for small businesses, not necessarily connected with what kind of hires that the businesses should do, and not necessarily connected with some type of targeted credit that may or may not fit with the business model of any particular small business, but in general, I think the gentleman would agree, making it easier for small businesses to keep the lights on right now so they can return to a mode in which they could increase payroll.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could speak to his mention of the resolution dealing with the Afghanistan war powers. As the gentleman knows, the Republicans view a withdrawal from Afghanistan within 30 days as incredibly irresponsible.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Still I would say that the Republican view is we have consistently supported this President in his efforts in Afghanistan as he has listened to the commanders on the ground to determine the focus and future of our presence there in terms of protecting our troops and the U.S. interests there. So I imagine my friend from Maryland, knowing his position on these things, agrees with that.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether there will be an all-out push to make this some type of partisan issue. Perhaps the gentleman could shed some light on his position on this bill that is being brought forward next week. And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to joining him in opposition to the resolution he is bringing to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman to give us, in the House, an update on when he expects the budget resolution to come to the floor. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman, in view of the short period of time until Easter break, is it his expectation that the House will take up health care legislation within that time period? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the President has asked Congress--in fact yesterday-- that the majority here consider using the reconciliation process to pass this health care bill. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it his intention and the Speaker's intention to adhere to the President's request and actually use the reconciliation process? And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that and would say that nothing compares to the use of or suggested use of reconciliation then as to now with this bill. I would say that there was, in the main, bipartisan support and, frankly, support on the part of the people of this country for what was being done through reconciliation in those instances.

I would like to turn the gentleman's attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question that I have regarding statements that were made as late as September of 2007 when then-Candidate Obama said, ``This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and in the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority'' said then-Senator Obama. ``You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of Presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50 plus 1, but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as President, but you can't, you can't deliver on health. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.'' That later quote, again, was the next month in October.

So I'm having difficulty understanding, Mr. Speaker, why now the President and the majority seem to have done a 180 when it comes to using reconciliation with a $1 trillion bill that could very well alter one-sixth of our economy. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't know if the gentleman is saying, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the President was wrong when he spoke about not using this process; but I do know, Mr. Speaker, that 70-something percent of the American people don't like this health care bill.

I think the gentleman is correct, Mr. Speaker, that all of us care about doing something positive for health care. Republicans care about health care. We went to that forum with our ideas. The public began to see for 7 hours that there were very different approaches to how we are going to deal with health care. We said if we can stop the overhaul, stop the $1 trillion attempt to lead us to a path from government getting in the way of decision-making between patients and their doctors, if we can set that aside, there could be some things that we could work on much more modest and focused in terms of cost control. Once we reduce cost, people can have access. More people can have insurance. We could also do some things together to address the problems of preexisting condition exceptions in coverage. All of us want to do something about that.

So I would say to the gentleman, I am disappointed--as I know he knows that we are--that his side has decided to defy the protests that came from the President and others on his side of the aisle about the use of reconciliation for health care. But I would ask the gentleman, will the House move next on health care or will it be the Senate? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, from the summation of his remarks, I gather that there has been no willingness to listen to the American people on the part of the majority here in the House.

The gentleman does know that all polls indicate that the American people want us to set the bill aside, to stop this construct that Washington is going to tell everyone how to design

health care, and to really start over. In a CNN poll last week, 73 percent of the public said, Shelve the bill. Start over.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I look forward to working together with him in whatever way we can, frankly, focusing on the issue of getting America back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding me time and for his active engagement in support of moving this process forward.

Mr. Speaker, Article III of the Constitution provides that Federal judges are appointed for life and that they ``shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' Indeed, the Framers new that an independent judiciary free of political motivations was necessary to the fair resolution of disputes and the fair administration of our laws. However, the Framers were also pragmatists and had the foresight to include checks against the abuse of the independence and power that comes with a judicial appointment.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. This is a very serious power that should not be undertaken lightly. Indeed, it is a rare and solemn occasion when the House of Representative must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a Federal judge. Today's vote will mark only the second time in over 20 years that this has occurred. However, when the 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.

On June 17, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States certified to the House of Representatives that ``consideration of impeachment of U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous may be warranted.'' This certification was the culmination of an investigation and formal complaint by the Department of Justice, an investigation and final report by a special investigatory committee appointed by the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and consideration and vote by the Judicial Council of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

In September 2008, the House passed a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to further investigate whether Judge Porteous should be impeached. The Task Force on Judicial Impeachment was then created by the House Judiciary Committee to further investigate the matter. The task force conducted an exhaustive investigation, working with law enforcement and judicial officials, conducting numerous interviews, taking depositions from key witnesses, gathering evidence and transcripts from previous investigations, and conducting congressional hearings. Those efforts have uncovered a large amount of information, including much new evidence that was not uncovered in previous investigations.

The evidence shows that, among other instances of misconduct, while on the Federal bench, Judge Porteous refused to recuse himself from a Federal case when he had previously engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the attorneys representing the defense; that he later took thousands of dollars in cash from those same attorneys while the case was still pending; that he took gifts from a bail bondsman in exchange for granting favorable bond rates for him and then improperly expunged the records of two of the bail bondsman's employees, one after Porteous was confirmed by the Senate to be a Federal judge; that he used his influence as a Federal judge to help the Marcottes establish beneficial relationships with State court judges; that he lied to a bankruptcy court when he filed for bankruptcy and then violated a bankruptcy court order mandating that he not incur further debt; and that he made materially false statements to the U.S. Senate and the FBI during his confirmation process.

Based on the evidence gathered on January 21, 2010, I joined with Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Task Force Chairman Schiff to introduce House Resolution 1031, which contains four separate Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous. The details of these Articles have been discussed already today. It is important to note that every member of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment joined as an original cosponsor of these articles. Furthermore, these Articles of Impeachment were reported from the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote of 24-0, a very rare occurrence. It is my strong recommendation that the Members of the House now support these Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous.

It is also important to note that during the task force investigation Judge Porteous was invited to come testify, but declined this invitation. His attorney was also invited to attend the hearings, was given the privilege of asking questions of the witnesses at the hearings, and was offered the opportunity to bring forth witnesses on behalf of Judge Porteous.

I would 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 Impeachment Task Force, I appreciate the fact that this effort was undertaken in a nonpartisan fashion.

I would like to thank the task force staff on both sides of the aisle and Branden Ritchie, legislative counsel in my office, for their dedicated and invaluable work on this matter.

I would like to also thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive, yet expeditious, consideration of these Articles of Impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee. I'd also like to extend additional thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who's the only Member who participated in the last series of impeachment of Federal judges back in the 1980s. His experience and knowledge has been invaluable as well.

I urge my colleagues in the House, not in a bipartisan manner, but in a nonpartisan manner, to join in supporting all four of these Articles of Impeachment and send this measure to the United States Senate for trial.