Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Sacramento, my Rules Committee colleague, has just said, this resolution will allow the Judiciary Committee to continue its very important oversight work by reauthorizing an investigation of G. Thomas Porteous.

The committee's ongoing inquiry into his conduct and the question of whether to pursue impeachment by the House should continue in this 111th Congress. This is a bipartisan ongoing effort. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is so utterly bipartisan and noncontroversial that our colleagues could very reasonably expect that this measure would have been considered by unanimous

consent. Such widely supported procedural matters usually do not demand a formal debate.

I certainly do hope that today's consideration of this resolution under suspension of the rules is not an indication that the Democratic leadership needs filler time for the schedule. I mean, it would be a little disconcerting to think that they have nothing more important to do in the House, just 1 week before this very, very important inauguration. So whatever the motivation of today's procedure, I do strongly support this measure.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this debate on this resolution that we're considering under suspension of the rules that, as I said, could be considered by unanimous consent, we know that the pressing issue for the American people right now is our effort to get our economy back on track. That's what so much of the talk is going on right here in Washington, and we know that virtually everyone across this country and, frankly, around the world, as we deal with this global economic downturn, virtually everyone is talking about what steps can be taken for us to get our economy back on track.

And it would seem to me that, rather than taking time on a resolution such as this, which could have been considered by unanimous consent, that we should be moving ahead as expeditiously as possible with legislation that will, in fact, get our economy back on track.

That's why I, on opening day, just a week ago today, in fact, I was proud to introduce a trio of bills that I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, will play a key role in getting our economy back on track.

The first bill is known as the Fair and Simple Tax Plan. We all know about the complexity of the Internal Revenue code, and we regularly hear from our constituents about the level of frustration. And we all know that it is very time consuming and costly to deal with this complex code.

The Fair and Simple Tax Plan is a package that I was privileged to work with the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani; former nominee for Governor in California, Bill Simon; former economic adviser to President George H.W. Bush, Michael Boskin at Stanford University, and several others. It is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that would take the six tax rates that we have today and compress them down to three rates. The top rate, Mr. Speaker, would be 10 percent on the first $40,000 in income, 15 percent on income between $40 and $150,000, and a top rate of 30 percent on all income above $150,000.

Now, I believe that that kind of rate reduction would increase compliance and stimulate very important economic growth that the American people know is desperately needed as we deal with these tough economic times.

This measure also has some other very important components that would take the complex Internal Revenue code and bring it down to a single page, one page. It does maintain, Mr. Speaker, some important provisions, like the ability for the American taxpayer to deduct the interest on their home mortgage; the ability, and we talked about the resolution earlier, encouraging volunteerism; the ability to continue to deduct the charitable contributions that people make as we encourage this level of volunteerism. Very important.

It also maintains the important child credit and the provisions that have existed. And it expands incentives for retirement, and it includes a $15,000 exclusion to deal with the challenge that we have with health care. And that $15,000 could be utilized for the purchase of health insurance or direct health care costs, because we know what a pressing need that is that exists today.

It also is important, if we're going to get our economy back on track, Mr. Speaker, and I wish that we were having a full debate on this issue right now, for us to, I believe, completely eliminate the inheritance tax, the so-called death tax.

When you see people having to sell businesses, to sell homes, simply to comply with the Internal Revenue code, and I know that with that death tax, I believe that completely repealing that, nailing the coffin on the death tax is something that is very important.

We also know, and today we got the news about the fact that we've seen an actual narrowing of the trade imbalance, we also know that one of the important things for us to do is to deal with the challenge of jobs leaving the United States and going overseas. And so that's why the Fair and Simple Tax Plan also reduces the top tax rate on job creators from 35 percent to 25 percent, and economists across the board have recognized that that would go a long way towards creating good jobs right here in the United States of America.

We also know that the tax on capital has been very, very high and people are living with the threat of it possibly going up. And so the Fair and Simple Tax Plan brings about a reduction to 15 percent of that tax on capital gains. And not many people are witnessing capital gains at this point, but as we seek to get our economy back on track, I believe it's very important and that would be a key to helping us in our effort to do that.

So this is, again, a very simple plan that I believe could dramatically stimulate economic growth and get to the kind of permanence that we need.

I will say that I heard some remarks being made by our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Conrad, in which he was referring to some of the concerns that he's had with this massive economic stimulus bill that is about to come before us. And one of the concerns that he raised as he talked about it being timely and targeted, that we--and temporary, those three Ts--that we do everything we can to ensure that. And he pointed to the fact that the notion of dramatically extending and making permanent the unemployment insurance would not be temporary. Making permanent COBRA provisions would not be temporary. Those are two issues that our colleague, Mr. Conrad, has raised as concerns.

So I think that there's a lot of controversy swirling around this so- called economic stimulus package, and I think that if we want it to be timely and temporary, these government spending programs, we need to spend time and effort focused on how we can permanently, permanently get our economy back on track.

I mentioned the first of the trio of bills that I introduced a week ago today, Mr. Speaker. The second one is dealing with an important sector of our economy which we all know has played a key role in the downturn through which we're now going, and that is the housing industry. And we've seen huge sums of money pushed toward the housing industry right now, and I believe that one of the things that we need to do is to reward responsible behavior.

Now, unfortunately, government policy has encouraged people to purchase homes with zero down, and have interest rates that are extraordinarily low; basically turning the home ownership, something that we very much want to encourage, into little more than homes into little more than rental units, creating incentive for people to walk away from them.

So the second bill that I introduced, Mr. Speaker, is designed to incentivize people to responsibly have equity in their homes. One of the problems that we found is that as we see this credit crunch, it's been difficult for people to have what is now necessary for a down payment for those homes. And so the measure that I introduced, which, again, will encourage people not to walk away from their home and have equity in it, provides a $2,000 credit if one provides a, establishes a 5 percent down payment, a $5,000 credit if they have a 10 percent down payment, and a $10,000 tax credit if they will put 15 percent down.

Now, let's think about that. I mean, if someone puts 10 percent down on a $200,000 home, they automatically have $20,000 in equity and would be much less inclined to abandon that home as we've dealt with the challenges that we face out there.

There is an inventory that needs to be addressed, of housing, that has yet to be purchased. We have neighborhoods that have been emptied, and I believe that this kind of incentive could again take this industry, which has played a role in the economic downturn, and actually, as has historically been the case, play a role in leading us back to economic strength.

And the third measure deals with the other industry, Mr. Speaker, that, as you know very well, we've spent a great deal of time talking about here; the administration has recently taken action on it, and it has to do with the automobile industry.

Now, I will say that I'm not personally one who believes that we should be using the Tax Code to encourage the selection of winners over losers, but we know that both the housing industry and the auto industry have historically been very critical when it comes to moving back to economic strength. And so, having worked with a number of automobile dealers who, frankly, were here in December when we were having the debate in the 110th Congress on this issue, one of the things that was said to me was that we need to make sure that people are encouraged to get off the couch and into the showrooms to look at the purchase of automobiles.

Now, we know, one dealer, a fellow called John Symes, about whom I've spoken here, a 60-year dealership in Southern California in the Pasadena area, a number of dealerships, has said that historically the ability to deduct the interest on automobile loans has been very, very helpful. Well, I don't know that we should go back to that. So, instead, the third bill that I introduced on this, Mr. Speaker, would do the following:

We basically are saying that today we know that the sales tax, both State and local sales tax in States has been very high, and so we called for a credit that would allow an offset for the State and local sales tax to encourage people, again, to get into the showrooms to purchase automobiles, regardless of where those automobiles are from.

I regularly like to say when people say, well, what about American- made cars? And I ask the question somewhat rhetorically, what is an American-made car, Mr. Speaker? Is it a Ford manufactured in Canada with Mexican-made parts, or is it a BMW manufactured in South Carolina with American-made parts?

And so I believe it is important for us to ensure that any automobile, any automobile would, in fact, qualify for this provision. So if someone's buying a $20,000 automobile and the sales tax is 8 percent, that would be $1,600 right off the top. And we set that at the sales tax rate for January 1 of 2009.

Both the housing and the automobile provisions, Mr. Speaker, apply for a 2-year period of time during which I'm convinced we can, in fact, see our economy grow.

The reason that I have raised these issues, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe, as we deal with a resolution like this one that could be brought up under unanimous consent, we should, instead, be debating and voting on measures like these three bills that were introduced last week. I know there are a wide range of other creative ideas that have come from Democrats and Republicans as well as to how we can deal with this.

So I hope very much that we can take on this challenge and that we can ensure that whatever we provide in this economic stimulus package that it is, in fact, going to be a package that will get our economy back on track.

I am very concerned at the reports that we have gotten of massive, massive spending, and I, again, congratulate our colleague Senator Conrad for pointing to the deficit as being an issue with which we are going to have to contend. If we want to have sustained and not temporary economic growth, I believe the best way that we can do that is to take steps to encourage greater and greater and greater private- sector growth in our economy.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in support of this resolution. I hope very much that we can move ahead with it so that we will be able to deal with the pressing challenges that the American people have sent us here to address.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 15, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary to inquire into the matters concerning Judge Porteous and let it be a signal that this Congress is interested in understanding what truly transpired regarding the Judge in a bipartisan and impartial manner.

Judge Porteous was a United States District Judge for Louisiana, and had been a judge of the Louisiana Judicial District Court from 1984 before being appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.

Judge Porteous is well-known for his stance upholding the Constitution's separation of church and state and his judgments in defense of the first amendment right to free speech. He has controversially ruled in several landmark cases against the State, including one 2002 case in which he ruled that the State of Louisiana was illegally using Federal money to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education programs. He ordered the State to stop giving money to individuals or organizations that ``convey religious messages or otherwise advance religion'' with tax dollars. He said there was ample evidence that many of the groups participating in the Governor's Program on Abstinence were ``furthering religious objectives.''

Also, in 2002, Judge Porteous overturned a Federal ban on rave paraphernalia such as glowsticks, pacifiers, and dust masks, which are used at rave, electronic music concerts, where the use of Ecstasy is common.

In 2001, Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy, which led to revelations in the press about his private life, specifically the fact that he was alleged to have had close ties with local bail bond magnate Louis Marcotte III, at the center of a corruption probe, which has more recently led to his being the subject of investigation himself by Federal investigators. In May 2006, Judge Porteous, beset by the recent loss of his wife and still under investigation by a Federal grand jury, was granted temporary medical leave and began a 6-month furlough from the Federal bench.

On June 18, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted a certificate to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives expressing the Conference's determination that consideration of impeachment of Judge Porteous might be warranted. The certificate stated that there was substantial evidence that Judge Porteous ``repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath which concealed cash and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him. The certificate listed a series of ``abuses'' that constituted an abuse of judicial office in violation of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Late last year, I was selected to be one of the members of the House Judiciary Taskforce that will investigate Judge Porteous. Representatives Adam Schiff and Bob Goodlatte were designated as chair and ranking member to lead the taskforce conducting the inquiry.

H. Res. 15 authorizes and directs the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach Judge Porteous. The resolution provides that the taskorce may, in

connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena.

Moreover, the resolution provides that there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be necessary to assist the committee on the Judiciary in conducting the inquiry under this resolution. The committee is authorized to require by subpoenas or otherwise, the (1) the attendance and testimony of any person and (2) the production of such things as it deems necessary for the inquiry. Lastly, the resolution provides that the Committee may adopt a rule regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the Committee.

By bringing this resolution to the floor, we as Members of Congress demonstrate that we are concerned about taking the moral high ground and are concerned enough to investigate wrongdoing and allegations thereof when it affects anyone in a bipartisan manner--be the accused a Democrat or Republican. This resolution is an important first step to the beginning days of an administration that staked its campaign on change. Let us usher in change. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers appointed by the House for the purpose of exhibiting Articles of Impeachment against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, agreeably to the notice communicated to the Senate, and at the hour of 2 p.m., today, Wednesday, March 17, 2010, the Senate will receive the honorable managers on the part of the House of Representatives in order that they may present and exhibit the said Articles of Impeachment against the said G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following counsel and staff of the House of Representatives be permitted the privileges of the floor during the proceedings with respect to the trial of the impeachment of Judge Porteous. They are as follows: Danielle Brown, Allison Halataei, Alan Baron, Harry Damelin, Mark Dubester, Kirsten Konar, Jessica Klein, Branden Ritchie, Michael Len, Phil Tahtakran, Ryan Clough, and Elisabeth Stein.

Mr. President, at this time the oath should be administered in conformance with article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution of the United States and the Senate's impeachment rules. I move that the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, be designated by the Senate to administer the oath to the Presiding Officer of the Senate, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.

Mr. President, the oath shall now be administered by the Presiding Officer to all Senators. This is an appropriate time for any Senator who has cause to be excused from service in this impeachment to make that fact known.

If there is no Senator who desires to be excused, I move that the Presiding Officer administer the oath to Members of the Senate.

Mr. President, any Senator who was not in the Senate Chamber at the time the oath was administered to the other Senators will make that fact known to the Chair so that the oath may be administered as soon as possible to that Senator. The Secretary will note the names of the Senators who have been sworn and will present to them for signing a book, which will be the Senate's permanent record of the administration of the oath. I will remind all Senators who were administered this oath that they must now sign the oath book, which is at the desk, before leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 15, which I cosponsored with Chairman Conyers. This resolution provides continued authorization for an inquiry into whether U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous should be impeached.

The Constitution reserves the exclusive power of impeachment to the House of Representatives and the exclusive power to try all impeachments in the Senate. Any ``civil officer'' of the United States, including Federal judges, shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted of ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.''

Only 13 Federal judges have been impeached during the past 219 years of our constitutional history. The House has exercised this prerogative sparingly in deference to judicial independence, one of the cornerstones of our republic.

Chairman Conyers and I concluded last year that there is sufficient reason to initiate an impeachment inquiry regarding Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994.

The basis for this resolution was largely developed by a Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit. The findings of the Fifth Circuit were endorsed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, which notified the House of Representatives on June 18, 2008, of its determination that impeachment proceedings may be warranted.

The materials submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the Judicial Conference are expansive and thorough. This led us to begin an impeachment inquiry last Congress pursuant to H. Res. 1448. However, our work is not yet complete. The resolution before us today is nearly identical to H. Res. 1448 and allows us to continue our investigation.

Madam Speaker, as you know this resolution authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an investigation to determine whether Samuel Kent should be impeached. I know that we are all appalled by the behavior that led to Judge Kent's guilty plea, and can agree that moving forward with an eye to removing him from the bench is the right thing to do.

While we have no objection to most of the resolution, I note that section 3(c) authorizes staff deposition authority, something we have been consistently concerned about due to the potential for abuse. My understanding is that the Judiciary Committee intends tomorrow to adopt a resolution putting in place the same safeguards on staff deposition authority that they currently have in place for their investigation into Judge Porteous. Those rules follow the model rules suggested by the Rules Committee and contain adequate protections for the Minority.

I am inserting the text of the relevant resolutions for the Record.

Our agreement to this unanimous consent request is dependent on the commitment from the Judiciary Committee that they will extend their existing rules on staff deposition authority to this investigation before engaging in staff depositions. Without similar assurances in the future, we will oppose efforts to grant unelected staff unfettered deposition authority.

Resolution

Resolved,