Commending The Ohio State University Buckeyes football team for its victory in the 2010 Rose Bowl.

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 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1047, bipartisan legislation I introduced to recognize the Ohio State University Buckeyes football team for its victory in the 2010 Rose Bowl. As a graduate of the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, and the Representative of the 15th Congressional District, where Ohio State University is located, it is my very great pleasure to wear the scarlet and gray today, and to publicly and formally congratulate the Buckeyes on a wonderful season, particularly for its Rose Bowl win.

I would like to thank the 26 cosponsors of this resolution for joining me in recognizing the Buckeyes' achievements, including all 18 members of the Ohio delegation. Buckeye football unites us across party lines. And I thank my Big 10 colleague from Wisconsin for his support of the resolution, and particularly for his kind words about Ohio State University's strong history of academic achievement. I am pleased that we can set aside partisan differences to come together and recognize the achievements of the student athletes of Buckeye football. I would also like to thank Chairman Miller for his help in bringing this resolution to the floor.

On January 1, 2010, central Ohio cheered on the Ohio State Buckeyes as they defeated the University of Oregon Ducks 26-17 in the 96th Rose Bowl game. It was the Buckeyes' fifth straight BCS bowl appearance and seventh Rose Bowl victory in the program's history. The Buckeyes' strong defense held the high-powered Oregon offense to 27 points below its season average.

While the win was a result of a tremendous team effort, quarterback Terrelle Pryor, son of Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, turned in an exceptional individual performance, throwing for 266 yards and rushing for 72 more, earning the Most Valuable Player award.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Buckeyes' worthy opponent, the Pac 10 champion Oregon Ducks, on a great season. Led by their quarterback Jeremiah Masoli and their running back LaMichael James, the Ducks came into the game ranked number seven and boasted one of the most prolific offenses in the Nation. Although the Buckeyes prevailed in Pasadena, Oregon overcame adversity all season and should also be proud of their achievements.

A great thing about college football is that you see the students come and go and new teams every year. And so after losing a wealth of experience on both offense and defense, some thought that 2009 might be a rebuilding year for the Ohio State Buckeyes' football team. But instead, during a banner month of November, the Buckeyes tallied wins over then-number 10 Penn State and then-number 13 Iowa in a thrilling overtime game on their way to winning the Big 10 title.

The Buckeyes achieved many historic achievements during the 2009 season. The team earned its fifth consecutive Big 10 Conference title, and its sixth in the last eight seasons. The Buckeyes also won at least 10 games 5 straight years for the first time in the program's storied history. The Ohio State defense was ranked in the top five nationally in four statistical categories, while shutting their opponents out three times. This year's senior class is the most successful in Ohio State history, winning a school record 44 games over the past 4 years. In addition, head coach Jim Tressel became only the second Ohio State coach, along with Woody Hayes, to win both a Rose Bowl championship and the national championship with the Buckeyes. Most importantly, 31 Buckeyes were named to the Big 10 all-academic team, and the Buckeyes have led the Big 10 in all-academic team honorees in eight consecutive seasons.

One other comment about the Rose Bowl, this one about the Rose Bowl Parade. Many great marching bands, including those from Ohio, marched on that day in the Rose Bowl Parade, but it was a banner day when the marching band from the Ohio State School for the Blind marched the streets of Pasadena as part of the Rose Bowl Parade, an historic first. And I really congratulate those students, their teachers, and their band director. We are very proud of their outstanding achievement as well.

As it turns out, the Buckeyes' victory in the Rose Bowl was a sign of good things to come for Ohio State athletics in 2010. The women's basketball team recently won the Big 10 regular season title for the sixth year in a row, a new record, and the Big 10 tournament title for the second year in a row. Meanwhile, the men's basketball team won a share of the Big 10 regular season championship going into this weekend's Big 10 tournament. I wish both of these teams the best of luck during their postseason runs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution recognizing the Ohio State Buckeyes' athletic and academic achievements. The 2009 Ohio State Buckeyes football team conducted itself both on and off the field with the excellence we have come to expect from this great program. I congratulate the Buckeyes on their season and look forward to cheering them on in 2010. As we say in Ohio, Go Bucks.

Before I begin, I demand a division of the question for a separate vote on each of the four Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, both the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment and the full Judiciary Committee unanimously adopted and reported out House Resolution 1031. The overwhelming support for this resolution is indicative of the weight of evidence supporting the four Articles of Impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous.

Impeaching a Federal judge is not something that the House of Representatives takes lightly, and impeachment proceedings are not something that we consider too often around here. By my count, this is only the 20th time that the House of Representatives will impeach a civil officer under the Constitution, and these tasks are not pleasant. When we need to do them from time to time, it is our responsibility, as Members of the House of Representatives. I have been involved in a number of impeachment proceedings over the years, but never before have I seen the overwhelming and blatant corruption we have before us here today. Judge Porteous is one of a kind, and it is time for him to receive his comeuppance.

The FBI and Justice Department have spent years investigating the wrongdoings by this judge. After their investigation, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously voted to refer this matter to the United States House of Representatives. In addition to the Justice Department's investigation, the staff of our Impeachment Task Force conducted a systematic investigation. This investigation resulted in four evidentiary hearings over the course of 5 days late last year, and it culminated in the full Judiciary Committee unanimously voting to approve four Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous.

The Impeachment Task Force hearings laid out overwhelming corruption orchestrated by Judge Porteous. My colleagues on the task force have detailed the specific actions taken by Judge Porteous, but I think it is worthwhile to focus on a few of them.

Judge Porteous was engaged in a crooked kickback scheme with his buddies at the law firm of Amato & Creely. The firm received tens of thousands of dollars in curator fees, and they kicked back about half of it to the judge. The kickback scheme wasn't the only shady dealing Judge Porteous engaged in with Amato & Creely. He was so emboldened that he would solicit gifts and cash while sitting on the bench. Sometimes he accepted trips. Other days, it was an expensive lunch or dinner. On another occasion, Creely helped pay for the judge's son's bachelor party in Las Vegas.

He didn't just solicit from Amato & Creely but also from others with business before his court. With this information alone, there should be no question about his blatant ethical lapses, rendering him unfit to serve on the Federal bench, but there's more.

Judge Porteous made false and misleading statements under the penalty of perjury with regard to his debts and bankruptcy proceedings. He misrepresented his name on court filings and used a post office box to conceal his identity. He also attempted to conceal assets and violated court rules.

While it's sad to say these actions almost seemed innocuous compared to his other actions and corrupt relationships, our task force spent a day focusing our attention on Judge Porteous' relationship with a bail bondsman named Louis Marcotte and his sister Lori. This hearing included testimony about the judge soliciting meals and trips like he did with the lawyers but also other things of value, such as auto and home repairs. In return, Judge Porteous assisted the Marcottes.

Judge Porteous had the opportunity to testify before the task force, but he chose not to participate in the proceedings. The entirety of the record by the task force plainly shows a pattern of unethical conduct that is not worthy of a Federal judge. The evidence demonstrates that he clearly abused his office and had complete disregard for the laws that he took an oath to uphold.

Soon, the onus will fall on the Senate to hold a trial. The clock is ticking, and it's important this trial take place promptly. Judge Porteous' suspension is set to expire in September, making him eligible to return to the bench. It is imperative that the Senate act expeditiously to ensure that this corrupt judge does not resume his perch on the Federal bench and preside again.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to impeach Judge G. Thomas Porteous on each of the four Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.