Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Helen Kleberg Groves, who will be honored on October 3, 2009 at the Autry National Center's Annual Gala, ``Celebrate the Spirit: Women of the West.'' The Autry National Center's mission is to tell the stories of all the diverse peoples of the American West, and that is reflected in the themes of their Galas--this year's theme, `Celebrate the Spirit: Women of the West' reflects the often neglected stories of Western women.

Helen Kleberg Groves is a true Texas cowgirl, a mother, a grandmother, an author, and a philanthropist with a heart as big as the King Ranch, her family home. Groves was born in San Antonio on October 10, 1927, the child of Robert J. Kleberg Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg. She was reared on the 825,000-acre ranch in South Texas, where she learned about ranching, line breeding, genetics, and working cattle from her father.

She attended Henrietta M. King High School in Kingsville; St. Mary's Hall in San Antonio; and Foxcroft School in Middleburg, Virginia. She also attended Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York. In addition to raising five daughters and a son, Groves made time for civic work while spending a lifetime in ranching and livestock. For more than 30 years, from 1956 to 1988, she was on the board of directors of King Ranch Inc.

She is president of the Robert J. Kleberg Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation, established in 1950 by her parents. The foundation has funded countless projects in Texas and across the country, particularly in the areas of biomedical research, health services, higher education, and veterinary and wildlife projects.

Ms. Kleberg Groves has been called an ambassador to the equine industry for her support of equine research and contributions to the development of the American Quarter Horse.

Known as the ``First Lady of Cutting,'' Groves has spent decades breeding, raising, and riding cutting horses. She began competing in cutting horse events in 1972 and took many championships until she retired from competition. She is a member of the National Cutting Horse Association Hall of Fame, National Cowgirl Hall of Fame, and the Texas Cowboy Hall of Fame.

Among her numerous honors is the Order of Australia from the Governor General of Australia. She was only the second American to receive this award. She is emeritus director of the U.S. Equestrian Team and a lifetime vice president of the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Association.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me in paying tribute to Helen Kleberg Groves, an inspiring individual--and true Woman of the West.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for moving this resolution so expeditiously and in time for a memorial service that will be conducted at Dodger Stadium this Saturday. I rise today to speak in support of legislation I've introduced with my colleague, David Dreier, my neighbor in California, honoring the first responders to the recent California wildfires, paying tribute to all those who helped during this crisis, and mourning the loss of Firefighter Captain Tedmund ``Ted'' Hall and Firefighter Specialist Arnaldo ``Arnie'' Quinones who died while bravely fighting the Station fire. These courageous men made the ultimate sacrifice for their family and friends and greater community, deserve our recognition and have earned our undying gratitude.

It is, I suppose, fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we take up this resolution following the September 11 resolution. When we think of September 11, in addition to the terrible tragedy and the loss of so many innocent lives, we think of the bravery of the emergency responders who, while others were rushing out of those collapsing building, they were rushing in.

Similarly, in California, 3,000 miles away from the site of that terrible tragedy, we, once again see firefighters rushing in while others are rushing out. And none could exemplify this courage and this call to service more than Specialist Quinones and Captain Hall. Our thoughts today go out to the families of these brave men. And with this resolution we seek to honor their lives and also highlight the contributions of thousands of other personnel who helped fight these massive wild fires which have burned hundreds of thousands of acres of public and private lands, destroyed and damaged structures and homes and forced the evacuation of thousands of families.

The weather conditions in California have been mixed. At times the weather has been still; the wind has been still. But that has caused smoke to accumulate and hampered emergency aircraft. At other times the winds have fanned the flames and started new fires. Low humidity has also, and high ambient temperatures have, contributed to the heat of the blaze, to the point where the Governor of California proclaimed a state of emergency in several counties in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Placer, Monterey and Mariposa.

The Station fire, ignited by arson, began on August 26 and burned more than 160,000 acres of public lands and private property in L.A. County and the Angeles National Forest where it continues to burn, including over 200 structures and homes. It is currently one of the largest fires in modern California history, and the largest wild fire in the history of Los Angeles County, as far as we can tell.

The Station fire continues to threaten 7,000 structures in the national forest and nearby communities like Altadena, Acton, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Pasadena, Littlerock, Sunland, Sierra Madre, and Tujunga. More than 8,000 fire personnel, 800 fire engines and approximately 40 helicopters, 13 fixed-wing aircraft and 88 water tenders have been deployed statewide to assist with firefighting efforts.

The continuing commitment and heroism exhibited by fire fighters have saved countless lives, homes and businesses. We also recognize the additional emergency personnel such as law enforcement and medical personnel who have coordinated with local authorities and fire fighters and performed beyond the call of duty in the preservation and protection of human lives.

We also recognize hundreds of volunteers who gave their time to help ensure that evacuees are sheltered, clothed, fed and comforted during this traumatic event. I can recall visiting some of the shelters in La Crescenta and La Canada, meeting with volunteers for the Red Cross. One, Kim Lardia, who's a Glendale police officer, worked a full day in uniform as a police officer, then came out in the evening to volunteer at the shelter to make sure that people had a place to sleep. It's people like this, bravely serving the community that are such an inspiration to us and give us confidence that we will finally get this fire put out.

So I want to join with my colleague again, David Dreier. We had the chance to visit the command center and speak with the fire chief and the incident commander, see the incredible coordination of Federal, State and local resources, had the chance to see not only acres and acres of burned forest land, but also homes that had been destroyed and devastated.

And we wanted to introduce this resolution today to acknowledge all the superb people who have come together to fight these fires and to pledge our commitment to make sure that the Federal Government continues to be a good partner. And once again, I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, or about 16 percent of our gross domestic product. And for all the money that we are spending, our health care system does not produce the best outcomes.

Millions of Americans have no health care insurance and receive their care at the emergency room. Millions more must make the difficult choice of whether to pay their medical bills or pay their mortgage because they can't afford to do both.

I support reforms in the health care package that will bring down health care costs by tying payments to outcomes rather than the quantity of tests being run, by ending the government's overpayment for prescription drugs, by empowering an independent commission to put health care cost reductions before the Congress for up-or-down votes, and by investing in prevention and primary care.

One of the choices that should be made available in the health insurance exchange is a public health insurance option. I strongly believe that the advent of a public plan alongside private insurance coverage would achieve a number of beneficial goals, providing a greater choice to families and much-needed competition with private insurers. The new plan would also use its inherent advantages to control costs over the long term through lower administrative overhead and the ability to bargain for volume discounts.

In order to make sure the public plan has the legs to compete with private insurers, I believe it needs to be available now, not as a fallback, and that we need to allow it access to an established provider network, like Medicare, that will ensure the plan competes on a level playing field.

As a nation we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country or about 16 percent of our gross domestic product. And for all the money we are spending, our health care system does not produce the best outcomes.

Millions of Americans have no health care insurance and receive their care at the emergency room. Millions more must make the difficult choice of whether to pay their medical bills or pay their mortgage because they cannot afford to do both.

I support reforms in the health-care package that will bring down health-care costs by tying payments to outcomes, rather than the quantity of tests being run, by ending the government's overpayment for prescription drugs, by empowering an independent commission to put health care cost reductions before the Congress for an up-or-down vote, and by investing in prevention and primary care.

One of the choices that should be made available in the health insurance exchange is a public health insurance option.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I am pleased that for the first time in 17 years the FAA has deemed the Part 161 nighttime curfew application officially complete. This is a big step in the right direction and shouldn't be overlooked.

I strongly believe that Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, California, has met the criteria for a curfew set by law and that a curfew would impact a relatively small number of diverted flights while delivering significant reductions in both the noise impact to surrounding communities and the cost associated with sound mitigation.

However, I share my colleague's concern that the FAA has not been serious about moving forward with mandatory curfews, despite congressional intent when Part 161 was signed into law. I look forward to working with Chairman Olver and the authorizing committee to ensure that Part 161 has the meaning and credibility and that the process is real and can lead to results.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment that was directed to inquire whether Judge Samuel B. Kent should be impeached, I rise to discuss the resolution before the House today and urge its adoption.

On June 19, 2009, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Four Articles of Impeachment were agreed to without dissent.

On June 24, 2009, I was joined by the other House Managers in this matter in presenting the Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate, whereupon proceedings were commenced. Later that day, Judge Kent was served with a summons by the Senate Sergeant at Arms, commanding an answer to the Articles of Impeachment. Upon being served, Judge Kent tendered his resignation to the President of the United States, effective June 30, 2009, which was accepted by the President.

On July 6, 2009, the managers on the part of the House advised the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment in this proceeding, of the resignation and its acceptance, and further advised the Senate that the managers had determined to recommend to the House that the pending impeachment proceedings in the Senate be discontinued.

Given that Samuel B. Kent is no longer a civil officer of the United States, having ceased to be a judge, the managers on the part of the House of Representatives respectfully recommend that the impeachment proceedings pending in the Senate be discontinued.

The resolution before us today instructs the House Managers to return to the Senate, to inform the Senate that, in light of Samuel Kent's resignation, the House no longer seeks to urge the articles of impeachment in trial before the Senate. This will enable the Senate to dispense with the pending trial.

I wish to emphasize that, although the Senate trial has proved unnecessary, the House has fulfilled its purpose of seeking to remove from office a judge who had committed high crimes and misdemeanors rendering him unfit to continue serving.

I would like to thank all my House colleagues for helping bring this matter to a successful result--and particularly my colleague Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Impeachment Task Force, for his leadership.

I urge the House to adopt this resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I rise in strong support of the 2010 State-Foreign Ops Appropriations bill and congratulate my Chair and friend, Nita Lowey, for her leadership in crafting a bill that not only addresses critical national security needs, but does so in a cost-effective manner.

After too many years in which diplomacy and smart power were shunted aside, this legislation is a reassertion of American leadership in helping to assure a brighter, more peaceful future for America's children and for children around the world.

I am particularly concerned about Somalia's renewed descent into chaos and the prospect that al Qaeda, which is under increasing pressure along the Afghan/Pakistan frontier, will take advantage of the power vacuum in that country as it did in Afghanistan during the 1990s.

This must not be allowed to happen. And the U.S. must be willing to work with the United Nations, the African Union, and nongovernmental organizations to help stabilize Somalia and create an atmosphere in which governance and security are again possible.

This will be a long and difficult process, and in the main it must be driven by the Somalis themselves. But I was gratified that the bill includes aid above the President's request to foster economic growth, encourages the State Department to continue its support of Somali refugees in neighboring countries and, most importantly, provides $102 million to support both the African Union mission in Somalia and security sector reform within Somalia itself.

In this bill, even as we have provided funding for important initiatives like that, and we provided robust funding to increase the size of our Foreign Service and USAID professionals to revamp our aid to Pakistan and to help it to better confront the threat from al Qaeda, to provide crucial aid to key Middle Eastern allies Israel, Jordan and Egypt, to ramp up our efforts to fight the scourges of malaria, HIV/ AIDS, and tuberculosis, and fully meet our obligations to the United Nations, Ms. Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and the staff of the subcommittee have also been mindful of the state of our economy here at home. In fact, this bill is $1.2 billion, or 2.4 percent, below the President's spending, and $3.2 billion, or 6 percent, below the administration's request.

Finally, I am very pleased the bill includes $48 million in economic assistance to Armenia, as well as an increase in humanitarian assistance to Karabakh to $10 million, and maintains military assistance parity to both countries at $3 million, and the IMET assistance at $450,000 each.

Importantly, the report accompanying the bill references the policy of parity in military assistance provided to Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Hill Avenue Grace Lutheran Church of Pasadena, California. The church is celebrating its ninetieth anniversary with a year-long series of celebrations commemorating the church's significant history in Pasadena.

In 1914, Martha Thompson, Laura Tallakson, Christiana Ellingson, and Thea Thompson, members of a small Norwegian-speaking Lutheran congregation in Pasadena, founded the ``Dorcas Club.'' The group grew steadily over the next few years and dedicated itself to forming an officially recognized mission church and in 1919, the United Lutheran Synod Church was established. The new church, with its first pastor, N.B. Thorpe presiding, held services in a storefront building on Lake Avenue in Pasadena. In 1923 the congregation purchased a church building at Mountain Street and Summit Avenue in Pasadena. Under the leadership of Pastor W.J. Maakestad, the church's name was changed to Grace Lutheran Church, and in 1926, church services changed from Norwegian to English.

By the late 1940s, after years of growth under Pastor Joseph Berg, the church needed more space, so the congregation built a new, larger church on Hill Avenue in Pasadena and changed the name to Hill Avenue Grace Lutheran Church. In 1966, the church was extensively remodeled, and the Sanctuary was rededicated under longtime Pastor Amon Johnson. Since then, Hill Avenue Grace Lutheran Church has continued to grow, adding a preschool and a new chapel, among other expansions.

Today, under the leadership of Pastor Anthony Auer, Hill Avenue Grace Lutheran Church is not only a vibrant Lutheran congregation but a dedicated community servant. Among its many other programs, church members run a weekly Food Shelf, help staff the Cold Weather Shelter, provide food vouchers for underprivileged students at Pasadena City College, and sew quilts and knit prayer shawls as part of the Prayers and Squares program. Alongside other Pasadena-area Lutheran churches, Hill Avenue Grace Lutheran Church has participated in operating Jacob House, a day shelter for homeless teens and adults, and Rachel House, a day shelter for women with children. The church also runs the Grace Christian Academy, a K-8 school dedicated to academic, social, physical, and spiritual growth.

I consider it a great privilege to represent Hill Avenue Grace Lutheran Church and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the congregation upon their 90th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, the bill today that Chairman Waxman has so carefully shepherded to the floor today is a landmark achievement for this body. For the first time as a Nation we are moving towards energy independence, creating millions of new clean jobs, and confronting the threat that global warming poses to the Earth.

As parents, we all struggle to provide our children with a better life. Without the strong action embodied in this bill, the world that we bequeath to our children will be diminished by continued reliance on Middle Eastern oil, by exporting billions of hard-earned American dollars to petro dictatorships, and by a warming Earth.

America has been at her best during her greatest struggles and, as before, her industry and entrepreneurial spirit will prevail. Already, the green technology industry is booming across the country, with new factories built and new companies formed every day.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government itself has not been able to fully utilize renewable energy. Many renewable energy installations have large upfront costs, which then have to be recovered in the form of cheap energy over the course of many years. But the Federal Government has been restricted from signing long-term contracts for energy, so affordable renewable energy has been unavailable to thousands of government offices around the country.

The rule for this bill inserts an important provision that I authored as independent legislation earlier this year and that I worked with many colleagues to include. It loosens the restrictions on energy purchases by the government, and that will spur local green energy development in every State in the Nation.

I hope that we can support this measure, this rule, this bill and fulfill the promise that we have given to our constituents, that we will serve this country not only today and during this Congress, but for the long haul, that we will make not only the easy decisions, but the hard ones.

I am very grateful to the gentleman and want to speak very briefly on an amendment I've introduced to authorize NASA's federally funded research and development centers to participate in DOD research and development programs.

JPL's scientific leadership represents an invaluable source of key expertise to DOD. JPL has performed research for DOD for decades. This amendment simply clarifies JPL's authority to continue to work with the Defense Department and closely parallels an amendment to perform the same function for the Department of Energy. We have worked with NASA to ensure this does not interfere with JPL's primary mission to build spacecraft and perform scientific research for NASA. This way we can ensure that important collaborations between JPL and DOD will continue.

Mr. Chair, today I am introducing an amendment that explicitly authorizes NASA's federally funded research and development centers to participate in Department of Defense research and development programs.

Many of us are familiar with NASA's world-renowned research and development center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, California. JPL, which is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology, has designed, built and controlled many of America's most successful unmanned spacecraft. Unmanned space probes, from the Ranger and Surveyor missions that paved the way for Apollo, to the Voyager spacecraft that explored the outer planets and continue to send back data even as they leave the solar system, have increased our comprehension of our celestial neighborhood beyond anything contemplated half a century ago. Since we first sent robotic emissaries to our neighboring planets, every American space probe that has visited another planet was managed by JPL.

The journal Science named JPL's discovery of evidence of past water on Mars as 2004's ``Breakthrough of the Year''. JPL's spectacular missions have brought us incalculable scientific data and have sustained Americans' passion for spaceflight at a time of greatly diminished human presence in space. These spacecraft have reinforced America's scientific and technological preeminence.

JPL's scientific leadership represents an invaluable source of key expertise for the Department of Defense. The Jet Propulsion Lab has performed research for the Department of Defense for decades by responding to DoD Broad Agency Announcements. This amendment simply clarifies JPL's authority to continue to work with the defense department, and closely parallels an amendment which performed the same function for Department of Energy National Labs in 1998. I have worked with NASA to ensure that the amendment does not interfere with JPL's primary mission, to build spacecraft and perform scientific research for NASA. By including this amendment, we ensure that important collaborations between the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Department of Defense will continue into the future. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for legislation recognizing the Women Air Service Pilots with a Congressional Gold Medal. These brave women served the nation at a pivotal moment in our history. I'm proud that we in Congress have finally commended them for their pioneering spirit and selfless dedication during World War II.

The Women Air Service Pilots, commonly known as WASP, were the first women in history authorized to fly American military aircraft. These courageous women volunteered to fly noncombat missions so that every available male pilot could be deployed into combat, contributing to the successful completion of U.S. Air force missions in the South Pacific and on the Western Front.

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, WASPs used their well-honed skills to dutifully service military aircraft, providing the U.S. Army Air force with a invaluable assistance. Thanks to their rigorous training, by 1944 the WASP had flown every aircraft in the army's inventory-- including P-59 jet fighters. The WASP flew searchlight tracking missions, ferried and tested planes, performed flight checks, towed targets for anti-aircraft gunnery practice, and instructed male pilot cadets, in addition to performing several other valuable tasks.

While more than 25,000 women applied for WASP training, only 1,879 candidates were accepted. Of these, only 1,074 successfully completed the grueling program at Avenger Field, the nation's largest all-female air base. Though WASP participants underwent the same vigorous training as male cadets, these dedicated individuals were refused recognition as a women's service within the U.S. Army Air Force and were denied veterans' benefits for over 30 years, finally gaining full recognition in 1977.

I'm honored to represent five former Women Air Service Pilots who reside in my Congressional District: Eileen W. Ferguson, Geraldine F. Olinger, Alyce S. Rohrer, Margaret M. Weiss, and Lillian G. Wray. These pioneering women answered the call of duty with enthusiasm and vigor, offering their great skills in service of our nation. I thank you for your service and congratulate you on your long overdue honor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to express my strong support for the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriation bill and at the outset want to congratulate Chairman Mollohan for the extraordinary job that he has done in putting this bill together.

In particular, I want to highlight a couple of key investments in the bill in the areas of law enforcement and science.

In particular, we invest over $800 million in the COPS program that has been very successful in putting additional cops on the beat and deterring criminal activity and keeping our communities safe. That is a vital investment. The legislation also makes a very important investment to those of us that live in the border States in a program called SCAP, which provides assistance to States that have to incarcerate illegal immigrants and bear the costs of flaws in our Federal immigration policy.

Furthermore, the bill makes a very key investment, very substantial investments in DNA technology and backlog reduction. To the degree we can eliminate backlogs of DNA evidence, we can take murderers and rapists off the streets. Of this there is no question: you can tell from a statistical certainty that when you reduce backlogs, you take murderers and rapists off the streets and prevent them from committing further offenses. This is another key investment.

And, finally, let me speak to a science investment in the bill which I think is also very important and that is this legislation keeps some of our most important space science efforts, like the Mars program, on track, which has brought us new, unprecedented information about the world we live in that has led to scientific improvements and innovation here on the ground and is a vital investment in our Nation's future.

So I want to thank you, Chairman Mollohan, for your extraordinary work on this bill, for the key investments in law enforcement and science, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Fred Lowe for his extraordinary work and leadership as Business Manager of the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 777.

Fred Lowe was born in Cleveland, Ohio and raised in California's San Fernando Valley where, in 1966, he graduated from North Hollywood High School.

Mr. Lowe began his career as a freelance journalist in the early 1970s while actively participating in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. He became involved in the Labor Movement in 1976 while employed as a warehouse worker at a General Electric plant in San Jose, California. As a Shop Steward at General Electric, he helped organize his coworkers into Local 6 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

Fred continued on to serve several unions, organizing and representing workers in both the public and private sector. He worked with individuals in skilled trades and service industries, as well as university professors and administrative and clerical workers. In the mid 1980s, he became involved in the Sanctuary Movement for refugees fleeing war and political oppression in El Salvador and Guatemala. In 1994, Fred Lowe served as an international observer to El Salvador's first democratic election.

By the mid 1990s, he returned to union organizing, finding his home within the Laborers' International Union of North America (L.I.U.N.A.). Working with the union's Organizing Department in 1996, Fred played an important role in managing a historic election of 5,200 Riverside County employees. With his leadership, L.I.U.N.A. gained its largest public sector organizing victory in the union's history. Shortly after the win, the union became known as L.I.U.N.A., Local 777.

Under Mr. Lowe's exceptional leadership as Business Manager, Local 777 has grown to represent over 8,000 members throughout both Riverside and Los Angeles counties. His determined efforts have shaped Local 777 into an outstanding example of political activism, helping to elect public officials who serve the needs of labor. For more than 30 years, Fred Lowe has worked as an effective advocate for laborers' rights in Southern California and has been instrumental in working toward equitable employee relations in Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. Fred and his wife Karen have three children, Luisa, Sonya, and Michael Scott.

On June 30, 2009, Mr. Lowe will retire from his position as Business Manager of L.I.U.N.A., Local 777. It is my great pleasure to recognize the extraordinary dedication and achievements of Mr. Fred Lowe and I ask all Members of Congress to join me in thanking him for his service.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Foreign Affairs Committee for all their hard work on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act and thank Chairman Berman for his support and his staff for working with me to include the Daniel Pearl Act as a part of this legislation. By incorporating the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, the committee brings much-needed attention to a critical human rights issue.

This legislation calls upon the Secretary of State to greatly expand its examination of the status of freedom in the press worldwide in the State Department's Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The Daniel Pearl Act requires the State Department to identify countries in which there were violations of freedom of the press and whether the government of those countries participate in, facilitate, or condone the violations. This report will spotlight those governments which seek to silence media opposition.

The Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act also establishes a grant program aimed at broadening and strengthening media independence internationally. Grant recipients will provide regionally and culturally relevant training to journalists and media organizations to help them meet international standards.

Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership on human rights issues and his support of the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and accomplishments of the popular Singing Cowboy and actor, Monte Hale, who passed away on Sunday, March 29, 2009, at the age of 89. His career as an entertainer spanned over 60 years in the industry making Westerns and singing country tunes.

Born Samuel Buren Ely in Ada, Oklahoma, Monte moving to San Angelo, Texas at an early age. He bought his first guitar for $8.50 at the age of thirteen and launched his musical career performing at various clubs around the State. It was during his performance at a War Bond Rally that Phillip Isley discovered him and soon the handsome, talented young man was headed to Hollywood for a screen test. He hitchhiked all the way, stopping at a gasoline station around the corner from the studio, just long enough to wash his face and comb his hair before making his appearance.

Monte's screen test was so impressive that he was immediately signed to star in ``The Big Bonanza'' with Richard Arlen. Shortly after he was signed to a 7-year contract with Republic where he was groomed up with films starring Wild Bill Elliott, Sunset Carson, and such fare as ``Steppin in Society'' (1945) with Everett Horton.

Around this time the executives at Republic were looking for someone to test a new color film and they decided to team Monte with Adrian Booth in the Magnicolor ``Home On The Range'' (1946), thus making Monte Hale Republic's first western star in a color series. Monte went on to star in 19 of his own films.

Monte was tall and handsome and possessed an excellent voice. With this in mind, Republic put his voice and his songwriting talents to work in the westerns. Not considered true musical westerns like those of Gene Autry and Roy Rogers, Monte's films were mainly dramas in which he stopped to sing a song now and then. He became one of Republic's most popular and respected singing cowboys.

Hale made a significant splash in the international comic book market of the era. Six Monte Hale series of the dime picture books were published in 27 languages and over two million copies per month were sold.

After his departure from Republic, Monte went on to do guest starring roles on such TV series as ``Gunsmoke,'' ``Wild Bill Hickock,'' and ``Circus Boy.'' He was a member of the panel on ``Juke Box Jury'' and appeared on the ``Western Star Theatre'' radio program. In addition he continued his work in films, most notably as Rock Hudson's attorney in ``Giant'' (1956) and in ``Chase'' (1966) with Marlon Brando.

Off the screen, his most lasting contribution was helping to establish the Autry museum. Monte and his wife Joanne were co-founders of the Gene Autry Western Heritage Museum and served as members of the board of directors and have since the inception of the museum which is now part of the Autry National Center as the Museum of the American West.

Hale made other contributions to the museum after its 1988 opening by greeting guests and enabling them to chat with a real, live singing cowboy. He also started encouraging fellow cowboy stars to contribute their signature memorabilia for permanent display in the museum's movie gallery.

He donated his own white hat, guns, gun belt and other prized treasures--then rounded up more contributions, including Chuck Connors' shirt from ``The Rifleman'' TV series, Buffalo Bill's saddle and a Lone Ranger outfit. A permanent exhibit dedicated to Monte Hale's career is located in the Museum of the American West's Spirit of Imagination Gallery. In 2004, Monte was honored with a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for Motion Pictures. His work for the Autry National Center of the American West and his legacy as an entertainer will not be forgotten.