Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I thank the gentleman and appreciate the great leadership of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Today we 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 we welcome, but it is an important responsibility that has been entrusted to us by the Founders and one which we must not shrink from.

Throughout our Nation's history, we have been fortunate to have a distinguished judiciary that has served as an essential and coequal branch of our government. We owe a great deal to the success of our representative democracy to the positive, thoughtful, and vital role played by the Nation's judges. To insulate members of the bench from political and other pressures, to ensure that judges are free to determine the justice of the cases before them on the basis of the law alone and no outside influence, Federal judges are appointed for life.

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. The President cannot remove a judge he has appointed or any other, and the courts cannot. Conviction of a Federal or State offense is also powerless to remove a judge from office. Only the Congress may remove a judge and only then upon impeachment of the House under article I, section 2 of the Constitution and conviction in the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors justifying their removal.

Because we have been blessed by an extraordinarily professional judiciary and because the bar for removal is high, the extraordinary remedy of impeachment of a Federal judge has been used only 13 times in the Nation's history. But the matter before us today warrants its use once again.

Last month, the House Judiciary Task Force on Judicial Impeachment was directed to inquire whether Judge Kent should be impeached. As the chairman 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. As a task force, we were extremely well-served by the very capable ranking member from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, and have worked to proceed in a fair, open, and deliberate manner, and we have done so on a bipartisan, really nonpartisan, basis.

Samuel Kent was appointed to the Federal bench in 1990 and served in the Galveston courthouse in the Southern District of Texas. During that time, he was generally the sole judicial officer in the courthouse, an imposing figure who exercised a substantial degree of influence and control both inside and outside of the courtroom.

At some point in 2001, Judge Kent began sexually assaulting at least two women employees who served in the courthouse. These repeated assaults occurred through at least May of 2007, when one of the victims, Cathy McBroom, filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit alleging sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Kent. In response, the Judicial Council of that circuit appointed a Special Investigative Committee to investigate the complaint.

On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent, pursuant to his own request, was interviewed by the Special Investigative Committee of that circuit. They sought to learn from Judge Kent whether he had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Ms. McBroom or others. During the interview, Judge Kent made material false statements about the extent of his nonconsensual contact with Ms. McBroom. He was also questioned about another female employee in the courthouse, his secretary Donna Wilkerson, and told the investigative committee that once Ms. Wilkerson informed him that his advances were unwelcome, no further sexual contact had occurred, when, in fact, he continued his nonconsensual sexual contacts with both Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson.

The Department of Justice commenced a criminal investigation relating to Judge Kent's conduct as well. In November 2007, Judge Kent asked for and was granted an interview with the FBI. During the voluntary interview that he had requested, he was asked about his alleged conduct and repeated the same material false statements he had made to the Fifth Circuit.

In August of 2008, Judge Kent, through his attorney, asked for a meeting at the Department of Justice. And at this meeting he sat down with his attorney, an FBI agent, and representatives of the Department of Justice, and again Judge Kent made material false statements about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson.

Intimidated by Judge Kent and worried about losing her job, Ms. Wilkerson was not initially candid with investigators and law enforcement when questioned about Judge Kent's conduct towards her. In fact, it was not until her third grand jury appearance that Ms. Wilkerson was willing to reveal the full extent of sexual assault she endured from Judge Kent.

On August 28, a Federal grand jury returned a multi-count indictment against Judge Kent, and on January 6 the grand jury issued a superseding indictment against Judge Kent alleging counts of aggravated sexual abuse as well as obstruction of justice and abusive sexual contact.

On February 23, the day his criminal trial was set to begin, Judge Kent pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Judge Kent knowingly, voluntarily, and truthfully admitted having nonconsensual sexual contact with both women and obstructing justice in his testimony before the Fifth Circuit investigative committee.

On May 11, Judge Kent was sentenced to a term of 33 months in prison and ordered to pay fines and restitution. Judge Kent began his term of incarceration on June 15, this past Monday.

The day after sentencing, the House of Representatives directed the Judiciary Committee Impeachment Task Force to inquire whether Judge Kent should be impeached, and the task force held an evidentiary hearing on June 3, receiving testimony from Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson as well as Professor Arthur Hellman, a judicial impeachment scholar. Professor Hellman provided expert testimony that concluded that making false statements to fellow judges, as well as abusing his power as a Federal judge to sexually assault women, were independent grounds that would justify and warrant Judge Kent's impeachment and removal from office.

The task force invited Judge Kent to testify, but he declined our offer. The task force received correspondence from Judge Kent that was made available to all Members and was entered into the Record. The task force also invited Judge Kent's counsel to participate in the hearing and present arguments on behalf of his client as well as to provide the opportunity to question any of the witnesses, and Judge Kent's counsel also declined to appear or participate.

Subsequently, Judge Kent's counsel sent a letter to the committee questioning the veracity of the women and making an extraordinary admission that their testimony was unnecessary because, quoting from the letter: Judge Kent's guilty plea to the felony of obstruction presents sufficient grounds for impeachment.

The task force also received a letter from Judge Kent to the White House, dated June 2, stating his intention to resign June 1 a year from now. But neither his surrender to custody nor his stated intention to resign a year from now affect his current status as a Federal judge or a constitutional obligation to determine whether impeachment is warranted.

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 Kent's conduct provides a sufficient basis for impeachment. According to leading commentators and historical precedent on

the issue, there are two broad categories of conduct that have been recognized as justifying impeachment: serious abuse of power and conduct that demonstrates an official is unworthy to fill the office that he or she holds.

Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted a certificate to the House certifying its determination that consideration of impeachment of Judge Kent may be warranted. After concluding that the full record establishes Judge Kent should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the House Judiciary Task Force met on June 9 and voted unanimously in favor of recommending four Articles of Impeachment, which have been read before the House today. On June 10, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H. Res. 520 favorably reported by a rollcall of 29-0.

Judge Kent, incident to his position as a U.S. district judge, engaged in deplorable conduct with respect to employees associated with the court. Such conduct is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge. In particular, the record demonstrates that Judge Kent sexually assaulted two women who were both employees of the court. Furthermore, Judge Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding by making false statements to the Special Investigative Committee of the Fifth Circuit and again by making false material statements to agents of the FBI and Department of Justice.

These acts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice are, as the judge who sentenced Mr. Kent to incarceration stated, ``a stain on the justice system itself.'' Were the House of Representatives to sit idly by and allow Mr. Kent to continue to hold the office of U.S. district judge while sitting in prison, and after committing such high crimes and misdemeanors, it would be a stain on the Congress as well.

Judge Kent's conduct was a disgrace to the bench. That he would still cling to the bench from the confines of his prison cell and ask the public, whose trust he has already betrayed, to continue paying his salary demonstrates how little regard he has for the institution he was supposed to serve.

I urge the House to approve each of the four Articles of Impeachment set out in House Resolution 520.

Today, we 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 welcome, however, it is an important responsibility that has been entrusted to us by the Founders and one which we must not shrink from.

Throughout our nation's history, we have been fortunate to have a distinguished judiciary that has served as an essential and co-equal branch of our government. We owe a great deal of the success of our representative democracy to the positive, thoughtful and vital role played by the nation's judges. To insulate members of the bench from political and other pressures, to insure that judges are free to determine the justice of the cases before them on the basis of the law alone and no outside influence, federal judges are appointed for life.

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. The President cannot remove a judge he has appointed or any other, and the courts cannot--conviction of a federal or state offense is also powerless to remove a judge from his office. Only the Congress may remove a judge, and only then upon impeachment in the House under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, and conviction in the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors justifying their removal.

Because we have been blessed by an extraordinarily professional judiciary, and because the bar for removal is high, the extraordinary remedy of impeachment of a federal judge has been used only 13 times in our nation's history. But the matter before us today warrants its use once again.

Last month, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment was directed by the House to inquire whether Judge Kent should be impeached. As Chairman of the Task Force, I'd like to report on our work and provide the Members of the House with the procedural history of this matter as well as an overview of the relevant facts. As a Task Force, we were extremely well served by the very capable Ranking Member from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, and have worked to proceed in a fair, open and deliberate manner, and we have done so on a bipartisan, really, nonpartisan basis.

Samuel B. Kent was appointed to the federal bench in 1990 and has served in the Galveston courthouse in the Southern District of Texas for most of his career. During that time, he was generally the sole judicial officer in the courthouse, an imposing figure who exercised a substantial degree of influence and control both inside and outside of his courtroom.

At some point in 2001, Judge Kent began sexually assaulting at least two women employees who served in his courthouse. These repeated sexual assaults occurred through at least May of 2007, when one of the victims, Cathy McBroom, filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, alleging sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Kent. In response, the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigative Committee to investigate Ms. McBroom's complaint.

On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent, pursuant to his own request, was interviewed by the Special Investigative Committee of that Circuit. The Investigative Committee sought to learn from Judge Kent whether he had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Ms. McBroom or with others.

During the interview, Judge Kent made material and false statements about the extent of his non-consensual contact with Ms. McBroom; in fact, he had engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with her. Judge Kent was also questioned about another female employee in the courthouse, his secretary Donna Wilkerson. He told the investigative committee that once Ms. Wilkerson informed him that his advances were unwelcome, no further sexual contact with her occurred, when in fact he continued his non-consensual contacts with Ms. Wilkerson as well.

On September 28, 2007, in an ``Order of Reprimand and Reasons'' signed by Chief Judge Edith Jones, the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit suspended Judge Kent with pay for four months and transferred him to Houston. The Order did not disclose the underlying findings of fact or conclusions by the Special Investigative Committee.

The Department of Justice then commenced a criminal investigation relating to Judge Kent's conduct. In November 2007, Judge Kent asked for and was granted an interview with Federal Bureau of Investigation law enforcement agents. During the voluntary interview that he had requested, he was asked about his alleged conduct and repeated the same material false statements that he made to the Fifth Circuit.

In August 2008, Judge Kent through his attorney asked for a meeting at the Department of Justice Headquarters in Washington, D.C. At this meeting, he sat down with his attorney, an FBI agent, and representatives from the Department of Justice. Judge Kent again made material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his non-consensual sexual contact with Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson.

Intimidated by Judge Kent and worried about losing her job, Ms. Wilkerson was not initially candid with investigators and law enforcement when questioned about Judge Kent's conduct towards her. In fact, it was not until her third grand jury appearance, that Ms. Wilkerson was willing to reveal the full extent of sexual assaults she endured from Judge Kent.

On August 28, 2008, a federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Judge Kent with two counts of abusive sexual contact against Ms. McBroom, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b), and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse against Ms. McBroom, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1).

On January 6, 2009, the grand jury issued a superseding indictment that re-alleged the three counts involving Ms. McBroom and added three additional counts. Count four charged aggravated sexual abuse against Ms. Wilkerson in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1), a crime punishable by up to life in prison. Count five charged abusive sexual contact against Ms. McBroom in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b).

Finally, the superseding indictment charged Judge Kent with Obstruction of Justice for corruptly obstructing, influencing, and impeding an official proceeding by making false statements to the Special Investigative Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson.

On February 23, 2009, the day his criminal trial was set to begin, Judge Kent pled guilty to Obstruction of Justice. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Judge Kent knowingly, voluntarily, and truthfully admitted having nonconsensual sexual contact with both women, and obstructing justice by testifying otherwise before the Fifth Circuit Investigative Committee.

On May 11, 2009, Judge Kent was sentenced to a term of 33 months in prison and ordered to pay fines and restitution to Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson. Judge Kent began his term of incarceration on June 15th, this past Monday.

The day after his sentencing, the House of Representatives directed the House Judiciary

Committee Impeachment Task Force to inquire whether Judge Kent should be impeached. On June 3, 2009, the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Judge Kent's conduct provides a sufficient basis for impeachment and to develop a record upon which to recommend Articles of Impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee.

The Task Force received testimony from Ms. McBroom, Ms. Wilkerson, and Professor Arthur Hellman, a judicial impeachment scholar from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson both testified that they were sexually assaulted by Judge Kent on a number of occasions, and detailed several of these incidents for the Task Force.

Professor Hellman provided expert testimony that concluded that making false statements to fellow judges, as well as abusing his power as a federal judge to sexually assault women, were independent grounds that would justify and warrant Judge Kent's impeachment and removal from office.

The Task Force invited Judge Kent to testify, but he declined our offer. The Task Force received correspondence from Judge Kent that was made available to all Members and entered into the record. The Task Force also invited Judge Kent's counsel to participate in the hearing and present arguments on behalf of his client, as well as to provide the opportunity to question any of the witnesses. Judge Kent's counsel also declined to appear or participate in the hearing.

Subsequently, Judge Kent's counsel sent a letter to the Committee. The letter questioned the veracity of the two women, citing an anonymous caller at length and claiming there are other witnesses who contradict the two women. The letter also made the extraordinary admission that their testimony was unnecessary because, quoting from the letter, ``Judge Kent's guilty plea to the felony of Obstruction presents sufficient grounds for impeachment.''

The Task Force also received a letter from Judge Kent to the White House, dated June 2, 2009, stating his intention to resign effective June 1, 2010, a year from now. Neither his surrender to custody, nor his stated intention to resign a year from now, affect his current status as a federal judge or our constitutional obligation to determine whether impeachment is warranted.

Article III, Section 1 provides that ``The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.''

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that ``all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

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 Kent's 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.

The House Report accompanying the 1989 Resolution to Impeach Judge Walter Nixon summarized historical precedents that inform the meaning of the term ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' stating that, ``Congress has repeatedly defined `other high crimes and misdemeanors' to be serious violations of the public trust, not necessarily indictable offenses under criminal laws. Of course, in some circumstances the conduct at issue . . . constituted conduct warranting both punishment under the criminal laws and impeachment.'' The Report concluded, ``When a judge's conduct calls into question his or her integrity or impartiality, Congress must consider whether impeachment and removal of the judge from office is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial branch and uphold the public trust.''

Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously transmitted a Certificate to the House of Representatives, certifying to the House its determination that consideration of impeachment of Judge Kent may be warranted. The certificate concludes that ``Judge Kent's conduct and felony conviction . . . have brought disrepute to the Judiciary.''

After concluding that the full record establishes that Judge Kent should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force met on June 9th and unanimously voted in favor of recommending four Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the House Judiciary Committee.

These four Articles were subsequently introduced in the House in the form of House Resolution 520. Article I focuses on Judge Kent's sexual assault of Ms. McBroom. Article II Article focuses on Judge Kent's sexual assault of Ms. Wilkerson.

Article III focuses on Judge Kent's obstruction of justice by making false statements during an official proceeding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Donna Wilkerson.

Article IV focuses on Judge Kent's material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his non-consensual sexual contact with both women to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to representatives of the Department of Justice on two separate occasions.

On June 10th, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H. Res. 520 favorably reported by a roll call vote of 29-0.

Judge Kent, incident to his position as a U.S. district court judge, engaged in deplorable conduct with respect to employees associated with the court. Such conduct is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge. In particular, the record demonstrates that Judge Kent sexually assaulted two women who were both employees of the court. Furthermore, Judge Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding when he made false statements to the Special Investigative Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Finally, the record demonstrates that Judge Kent made material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his non- consensual sexual contact with Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to representatives of the Department of Justice.

These acts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice are, as the judge who sentenced Mr. Kent to incarceration stated, ``a stain on the justice system itself.'' Were the House of Representatives to sit idly by and allow Mr. Kent to continue to hold the office of U.S. District Judge while sitting in prison, and after committing such high crimes and misdemeanors, it would be a stain on the Congress as well.

Judge Kent's conduct was a disgrace to the bench. That he would still cling to the bench from the confines of his prison cell, and ask the public whose trust he has already betrayed to continue paying his salary, demonstrates how little regard he has for the institution he was to supposed serve. I urge the House to approve each of the four Articles of Impeachment set out in House Resolution 520.

I think it is important for all of us to recognize the solemnity of this day, and I thank the managers and the task force members that I believe worked in that spirit.

As I come from Texas and Houston, I think it is important to note that the judge, as all people may have in America, has his defenders; and he will have an opportunity for those defenders to continue to raise their voice and to continue to emphasize their beliefs. As my colleague from Texas indicated, he had debilitating conditions, and he had faced tragedy. And so that should be recognized.

But I believe what I've come to acknowledge on the floor of the House and, in fact, I am coming to acknowledge is that there is the responsibility constitutionally to follow the law. So article II, section 4, in fact, says that we are to proceed with impeachment specifically if civil officers have engaged in partly or been convicted of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Specifically in count six of the plea agreement, we find language that says that this judge willingly agreed that he had obstructed justice. He admitted to falsely stating to the Special Investigative Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, lying to an official judicial body that the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with person B was one kiss, and that when told by person B his advances were unwelcomed, he then further said they were consensual; and that is to block person A from coming forward or having any veracity or anyone to back up what that person has said. I use A and B because I want to, again, respect that these are more than troubling comments and actions against two women who deserve to have a safe and secure workplace.

Then article III indicates that judges must hold their position and they must, in essence, be persons of good behavior. To create a workplace that does not allow the safety and security of your employee and, in particular, witness A and B, that poses a serious problem. So I am interested in making sure that we track the constitutional roadmap that we are now in and that we are aware of the fact that we can track the constitutional provisions and, in essence, say that this judge is not of good behavior. He now sits incarcerated. He has been convicted of a felony. The felony is obstruction of justice, and he did it knowingly.

I would like a moment to just say that in the proceedings where he had to proceed with his plea, the court specifically said, ``You have the right to persist in the prior plea of not guilty that you have entered in this case. And in that event, the burden is entirely upon this government to prove your guilt''--you don't have to go forward with this--``to a jury's satisfaction with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard of proof.

``And under the law and the Constitution''--to the judge who was standing there--``you are presumed innocent,'' which means you do not have to prove your innocence or prove anything at all, meaning that the judge was questioned on his plea that involved the obstruction of justice, misrepresenting and denying witness A, who has alleged of his activities with her and person B, that everything was consensual and that person A is not telling the truth. He did not have to proceed.

And so the court says, ``However, if I accept your guilty plea this morning, each of those rights will be denied.''

And after the defendant said, ``Yes, sir,'' the court proceeded and said, ``And knowing that, is it your intent to enter a plea of guilty this morning to this charge?'' The defendant answered, ``Yes, sir.'' That was, in essence, a plea to the felony of obstructing justice.

Sad as it may be, as we proceed to the constitutional procedure of the voting here and then a trial in the Senate, it lays down the framework that we must act. We have no inability to ignore it. We must act. High crimes and misdemeanors, worthy behavior, all of them have been counted by a willing expression of this individual, this judge, that he has committed this offense.

It is crucial that we proceed in moving on the articles of impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Impeachment Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee, I rise today in support of a recommendation for impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent. First and foremost it is necessary to establish the legal authority of Congress to make impeachment determinations. The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress--a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as ``the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution''), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares: ``the legislative authority necessarily predominates.''

Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress--not the Court--is ``the confidential guardians of [the people's] rights and liberties.'' Why? Because the Legislature--not the unelected judiciary--is closest to the people and most responsive to them. When the Court did claim that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution--that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared: ``[T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.''

After establishing that the Congress has jurisdiction to preside over impeachment proceedings, it is imperative to outline the legal

standard for impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution delineates the standard for removal from office of all civil officers by stating that: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

The Constitutional Standard is further buttressed by the intent behind Article II, Section 4. The Founders' intent for impeachment was to protect the fundamental principle of ``the consent of the governed.'' The Constitution carries no title but ``We the People,'' and impeachment removes from office those officials who ignore that standard of adhering to the values of the people--that sexual abuse and pleading to a felony is not good behavior. It is important to note that the Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for life, but only for the duration of ``good behavior'' (Art. III, Sec. 1).

For this reason impeachment was used whenever judges disregarded public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker. Previous generations used this tool far more frequently than today's generation; and because the grounds for impeachment were deliberately kept broad, articles of impeachment have described everything from drunkenness and profanity to judicial high-handedness and bribery as reasons for removal from the bench. Historically speaking, sixty-one federal judges or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment; of whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted. The noted legal scholar from Yale University Professor Charles Black writes in his Impeachment Handbook that, ``In the English practice from which the Framers borrowed the phrase, `High Crimes and Misdemeanors' denoted political offenses, the critical element of which was injury to the state. Impeachment was intended to redress public offenses committed by public officials in violation of the public trust and duties, offenses against the Constitution itself. In short, only `serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,' constitute impeachable offenses.''

One of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in the Federalist Papers No. 65 that, ``Those [impeachable] offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, [in] other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which . . . relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.''

As Hamilton makes clear, criminal conduct alone was and is not enough. The conduct also should involve public office. That should be the standard here as we proceed. Given the context of the Constitutional standard for impeachment coupled with the intent of the Framers, the issue at hand is whether Judge Kent's conduct constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors, within the framework of the Constitution. On review of the facts, we find that Judge Kent's obstruction of justice charge based on providing testimony to the FBI and the DOJ on the nature and extent of his relationships with his former employees while the Judge was in office, does in fact meet the standard of high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Furthermore, Judge Kent's felony conviction for obstruction of justice raises issues of fitness to the bench. While Judge Kent's felony conviction on its face satisfies the Constitutional standard of impeachment, the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of the Judge made by former employees continue to call into question Judge Kent's fitness for Office.

Pursuant to witness testimony the Impeachment Task Force heard from Cathy McBroom, Former Case Manager for Judge Kent, Ms. McBroom recounted over ten episodes of sexual misconduct she experienced while working for Judge Kent. Ms. McBroom noted that Judge Kent's physical presence was imposing at 6'4", 260 pounds, and coupled with his frequent self-references to his power, this made it difficult for her to believe that she would be able to prove the Judge's misconduct and successfully pursue outside employment in the Galveston legal community.

Donna Wilkerson, Judge Kent's former Legal Secretary also testified before the Task Force. Wilkerson stated that during her tenure as Kent's legal secretary, she suffered seven years of psychological abuse and sexual misconduct. Wilkerson noted that each episode of sexual misconduct always took place in the office, and seemed to follow lengthy lunches where the Judge returned to work intoxicated.

While the issue of Judge Kent's possible alcohol dependency and the condition of his mental health may be mitigating factors in this Committee's impeachment determination, the real issue is whether Judge Kent is fit for the position he holds. Accordingly, the conduct of Judge Kent while in office as 5th Circuit Court Judge of Galveston, Texas yields him unfit for office under constitutional standards.

Kent did submit a letter to President Obama and to our Task Force requesting permission for withdrawal from the bench one calendar year from now. Pursuant to Judge Kent's felony charge, it would not be appropriate for him to collect a salary and pension over the course of the next year. Additionally, under the guidelines of Judge Kent's proposal, his withdrawal from office would not go into effect until the day of the withdrawal, which means that Kent's decision to remove himself from office would be revocable at any time up until the final date of withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, it pains me to take action against a member of the bench from my own state, but the Constitution imposes upon us a duty that we must uphold. As such, on the issue of whether Judge Kent's conduct constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors, I believe that all of us should agree that he has. Given our Constitutional duty, I urge my colleagues to support this extremely important and difficult decision of impeachment.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider and vote on Articles of Impeachment following U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent's guilty plea and sentencing.

Judge Kent is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and lying to a panel of his Federal judges who were investigating allegations that he sexually assaulted two women on his staff.

Following Judge Kent's guilty plea and sentencing, the House authorized the Judiciary Committee to undertake an inquiry into whether the House should impeach Judge Kent. Recently, the Impeachment Task Force of the Judiciary Committee heard testimony from two women whom Judge Kent sexually assaulted. Their testimony about Judge Kent's conduct was troubling, especially because Judge Kent abused his authority as a Federal judge to intimidate his staff into silence. Judge Kent has refused to appear before the committee. Judge Kent continues to abuse his position of authority by refusing to resign immediately. Instead, he sent a letter to President Obama tendering his resignation effective June 1, 2010.

Last Monday, Judge Kent reported to Federal prison to serve a 33- month prison sentence. By resigning effective June 1, 2010, Judge Kent is attempting to collect his full judicial salary for another year, even while he sits in prison. That's why we are here today, to take the next step to putting an end to Judge Kent's abusive authority and exploitation of American taxpayers.

On Wednesday, June 10, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved four Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. Two of the articles relate to his sexual misconduct, and two of the articles relate to Judge Kent's lying about his conduct.

I am not unsympathetic to the claims that Judge Kent endured difficult personal tragedies and may suffer from mental illness; however, he does not have the right to continue to serve as a Federal judge and collect a taxpayer-funded salary while sitting in prison for felony obstruction of justice.

Judge Kent has remained on the bench long after he sexually assaulted two women and lied to law enforcement officials. It is now time for justice; justice for the American people who have been exploited by a judge who violated his oath of office and obstructed justice by lying, and justice for the victims who were subjected to abuse and humiliation.

Although his attorney claims that Congress has ``better things to do,'' ensuring that a Federal judge convicted of a felony does not receive a taxpayer-funded salary while sitting in jail is important to our system of justice and a priority of this Congress. Every day that Judge Kent remains on the bench is one day too long.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these Articles of Impeachment to restore integrity to the Federal bench. And I hope the Senate will act quickly to ensure swift justice for Judge Kent, his victims, and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the ranking member of the Impeachment Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Impeachment Task Force and also a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Impeachment Task Force and a former attorney general of the State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Impeachment Task Force and a former district judge from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and also a former district judge from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun, who is also a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, never before has a Federal judge pled guilty to a felony, gone to jail, and refused to resign immediately from the bench.

In a clear attempt to get every penny possible from American taxpayers, Judge Kent, who pled guilty to obstruction of justice and is currently in prison serving a 33-month sentence, submitted a letter to the President resigning effective June 1, 2010.

The law does not require Judge Kent to step aside from the bench, even though he is a convicted felon. Every day he remains in office he receives his taxpayer-funded salary.

Congress has taken up this impeachment inquiry and moved quickly to ensure that Judge Kent is removed from the bench. His continued attempts to game the judicial system are just another example of how Judge Kent has abused his position of authority.

Earlier this month, the House Impeachment Task Force heard testimony from Judge Kent's two victims. His victims described the living nightmare they experienced while working for him. They were subjected to physical and verbal sexual abuse for years, ranging from lewd comments to forced physical sexual conduct. Neither woman felt that she could file a complaint without losing her job. Judge Kent warned all of his staff that disloyalty was grounds for removal. It was his ability to intimidate his staff into silence that perpetuated his abuse of authority.

Today's vote is necessary to ensure that justice prevails. When a judge is given a lifetime appointment, it is a tremendous honor and responsibility. But when a judge takes advantage of his authority, he must be held accountable for any violation of those principles of justice.

Congress must put an end to Judge Kent's abuse of authority and exploitation of American taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the four articles of impeachment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time on his side for purposes of debate.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we are here today to perform one of the most solemn duties under the Constitution, which is to consider the impeachment of a sitting member of the judiciary, a Federal judge, who, but for the congressional power of impeachment, holds a life tenure on his office.

The judge in question, Samuel B. Kent of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, has already pled guilty to obstruction of justice and has entered into and is residing in a Federal prison at this moment.

The Judiciary Committee's independent investigation, conducted admirably by a special task force established for that purpose and led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), has concluded that the charge underlying that guilty plea is overwhelmingly borne out by the evidence, as are the related charges of repeated sexual assault against various court employees under his supervision.

Judge Kent's conduct is described in greater detail in the report filed by our committee, which voted unanimously 29-0 to recommend four articles of impeachment to the House. The court documents and other materials are available on the committee's Web site.

Of the three branches of government devised by the framers of our Constitution, only the judicial branch is insulated from the accountability of standing for election. This is by design. The other two branches, the legislative and the executive, are designed to be democratically responsible to the people, but the judicial branch is designed to be independent, to interpret the laws passed by the Congress without favor and without fear of political reprisal.

And so, article III, section 1 provides that Federal judges hold their offices during ``good behavior.'' And when a judge abuses his power, when by his conduct he proves himself unfit to hold his office, he cannot be turned out by the voters; instead, it falls to the Congress to ensure that the public trust of that office is protected through the power of impeachment.

Congress has used this power sparingly. In our Nation's history, only 13 Federal judges have been impeached, and even fewer convicted. Needless to say, the conduct at issue here is both shocking and shameful. In due course, many of the disturbing details of Judge Kent's appalling conduct will more than likely be revealed, but now I want to emphasize for the Members the following points:

The committee is recommending impeachment not merely on the fact that the judge has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to prison; rather, it is his conduct--making false statements to his fellow judges in an official inquiry and sexually assaulting courthouse personnel--that the committee has independently determined to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment and removal from office.

The Judiciary Committee has determined overwhelmingly and unanimously, after most careful examination, that the judge's conduct plainly renders him unfit to remain a Federal judge.

Entrusted to use the power of his office to dispatch justice impartially, this judge abused his power blatantly, with partiality and favor, for his own personal gain. Entrusted to render justice, he has instead sought to evade it. Only Congress can remove Judge Kent from office. Until we do so, he will continue to draw a salary as a sitting Federal judge, even from his prison cell.

While the executive can prosecute him and the judiciary can impose punishment for his criminal conviction, only the Congress of the United States has the power to remove him from office, and that is our constitutional duty here today.

I bring this resolution to the floor with heavy regret that we are even called upon to take such action. But let it be clear, I have no doubt that this member of the judiciary must be removed from the office that he has so blatantly abused. The evidence is overwhelming and the grounds for impeachment perfectly clear. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize one of our most distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee who headed the

task force for impeachment in our committee. Adam Schiff has performed remarkably well. It is a bipartisan committee. And his former experience himself as an assistant U.S. attorney held him in very good stead.

I recognize the distinguished gentleman from California for 10 minutes.

I am pleased now to recognize for 5 minutes the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee who served on the task force with great skill, Sheila Jackson-Lee from Houston, Texas, who has been an anchor in the proceedings that have brought us to this stage. I also want to commend Bob Goodlatte for his services during that period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize for 3 minutes a former magistrate himself, Hank Johnson of Georgia, who is Chair of the Courts Subcommittee and an important member of the task force that was headed by Chairman Adam Schiff.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the task force and also the Chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to close on this side by calling a senior member of the Judiciary

Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, who, in addition, is the serving member of the Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee, the remaining time on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. This judge should be, and I think will be, impeached with this resolution. And it's about time for this body to do its constitutional authority, to be a check on judges. Unfortunately, this Congress has not fulfilled its constitutional authority in many instances.

Article I, section 1, sentence 1 says, all legislative powers therein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

We have had a perversion of the Constitution by both administrations of both parties in the Presidency, as well as by Congress. The Constitution has been perverted. We all swear to uphold the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic. We've got a lot of domestic enemies of the constitution, and I think enough is enough.

Under the Constitution, in the writings of our Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers, including the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, they very clearly delineated what they meant for the Constitution to mean. And it's time that we, as Congress, took our rightful places, being the strongest power of the Federal Government, to stop this spending, to stop the destruction of our children's and grandchildren's future.

I rise in support of the resolution.

This afternoon . . . the House of Representatives will exercise one of the great checks and balances built into the United States Constitution . . . the power to impeach.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution lays out the criteria for who can be impeached and for what offenses . . . It specifies that-- ``the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for . . . and conviction of . . . treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.''

These ``civil officers'' include federal judges and cabinet members.

The serious nature of impeachment is evident as the House of Representatives has only moved to impeach 18 officials in more than two centuries . . . This includes two presidents . . . one cabinet member . . . one senator . . . and 13 judges--not including today's proceedings.

Judge Samuel B. Kent . . . of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas . . . has pled guilty to unwanted, non- consensual sexual contact with two employees . . . testifying falsely before a special investigative committee of the federal judiciary . . . and making false statements to the Department of Justice.

His crimes certainly fit the high standard for impeachment that our Founding Fathers intended . . . I applaud the members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle for exercising their Constitutional duty and moving this to the full House for a vote.

When thinking about today's historic action . . . I also think about how far Congress and the Federal Government have strayed from what our Founding Fathers intended.

One only needs to read the historic Federalists Papers . . . written by three of the most prominent authors of our U.S. Constitution including the very first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice . . . to understand that our Founding Fathers intended Congress to be the strongest and most powerful of the three branches of government.

Yet, too often in this modern era . . . we the Congress . . . have abdicated our power to legislate . . . allowing the Judicial and Executive branches to greatly expand their roles far beyond what the framers of our Constitution ever intended . . . all while taking liberty away from the American people.

Today, the Executive and Judicial Branches are sadly doing the job of the Legislative Branch . . . regardless of which party sits in the White House or in the Speaker's chair.

President George W. Bush went forward with the auto bailout despite Congress's clear opposition . . . President Barack Obama has created numerous unconstitutional ``Czars'' with massive power once reserved for Senate-confirmed officials.

Executive Orders were once rarely used . . . but today they have become the norm for Presidents to bypass Congress and judicial review.

And today, our federal benches are filled with judicial activists who are hell-bent on legislating from the bench.

When is this madness going to end?

When is this body . . . the United States Congress . . . going to reclaim the power the Constitution has given this institution . . . intended to protect the liberties of the American people?

Today we are exercising our Constitutional authority to remove a judge who clearly is not fit to serve. But this should also serve as a wake-up call to this legislative body that our work should not stop with just this one vote.

We must continue to bring accountability to those who violate their constitutionally-permitted responsibilities. . . . Those who legislate from the bench . . . without regard to the will of the people . . . Those who by-pass the Congress to institute policy.

As our Nation's first President once said: ``Government is not reason, nor eloquence . . . It is force . . . And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.''

Today, we may use force to impeach . . . But we should constantly remind ourselves that this Nation sits on the precipice . . . looking to us for direction.

I urge my colleagues to not only support this resolution to impeach Judge Kent . . . I also urge them to take this opportunity to reflect on where we are headed as a legislative body . . . to stand up and take back the authority granted by the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the American people we represent.