chairman this bill passed through the house last year in the form in which it's presently and it is a bill to protect first amendment rights of journalists particularly from america where they've been subject to l criteria for first amendment protections as we have in america will not be enforced in the united states this is important to preserve our first remember rights of free speech and for authors that supported by necessary to keep the waters pure in quote we're here alive today would not take kindly to libel tourist twenty seven sixty five in the wake of nine eleven the american media has become increasingly alarmed mostly in great britain as laws provide writers and journalists less protection in those under the us system that honors the first amendment persons identified in news stories as terrorist or terrorist sympathizers have brought some of the higher profile s so how do american courts treat foreign judgments that clash with american legal values foreign judgment will not be enforced in a u s court in a foreign judgment is offensive to public policy or the constitution last september the house passed a libel tourism bill that codified existing u s treatment of the subject the other body did not act on the measure so we revisit the issue today better informed thanks to a subcommittee hearing and substantial input by experts on the subject matter h r twenty seven sixty five contains four major provisions first of advise that a u s court state or federal she will not enforce a foreign judgment for defamation if the judgment is any consistent with the first amendment standard sends a message however this is why i've offered the text of congressman peter king as an addition to mr cohen's twenty seven sixty five but i do not believe that either one of these standalone bills provide a comprehensive solution to libel tourism i believe we should reconsider moving forward with this bill until all parties can come together and craft a piece of legislation that addresses the concerns of american writers and actually protects them from libel tourism i believe that my colleague peter king is willing to work with mr go on to reach this goal and protect writers like rachel ehrenfeld or the journalists at the washington times or the washington post and i would hope they could both work together on this and i know this mr smith has a significant amount of work i support the work i difficult to pass and to pass constitutional muster it's essentially the same bill that representative peter king of new york introduced last year and i had concerns with that approach then in fact representative king joined with me in the bill that we passed through the house last  discuss mr king's bill from this congress before it so it's had a hearing at that hearing we heard professor linda sillerman of n y u law school one of the country's foremost experts on conflict of laws force metaphor judgments in particular and that's the particular area which this amendment causes me concern in her testimony she made it quite clear that the new york which would be the king amendment here of iowa was unconstitutional in its grant of authority in the states courts to assert personal jurisdiction over foreign party merely because that party another court under that country's laws that's really stretching what we're doing here and to give a cause of action for something you do that is legal and in a foreign jurisdiction there are additional policy concerns with taking this taking action in court and britain which is legal in that jurisdiction and invites other countries as well to retaliate against american litigants with aggressiveness in short i don't believe the king bill strikes the proper balance by protecting speech and respecting other constitutional and international policy goals that we have and respect for other countries laws but i don't foreclose the possibility of further congressional action with respect allowable terrorism which is a new area that we're just stepping in i don't think you would be productive to go this far as the amendment and certainly not at this time are broad be happy to further discussions with mr king of new york or anybody else about these concerns with the gentleman yield to a constructive dialogue yes or i think the gentleman from tennessee and i and i agree with the concern about the constitutional concerns with regard to the language in the and this amendment that i've offered this morning and admin it's offered for the purpose of making their request that is constructive dialogue over between the gentleman from new york and yourself and others are there avenues that you think can be pursued to further resolve these issues that are brought forth in the amendment well you know i don't know if there are wor include attorneys and and to go into a few other sections to make it stronger this is even a stronger bill the mr agreed to last year and i think this is a bill we can pass in this house and with the senate and finally get a lot of terrorism bill on the books which we failed members will have two days to submit views i welcome the lady from texas and all the other members of the committee and all the other members of the congress thank you so very much i thank everyone pursuant to notice we will now consider a resolution to adopt articles of impeachment against united states district judge and the clerk will report the resolution resolution impeaching samuel b can judge of the united states district court for the southern district of women he admitted having repeated nine consensual sexual contact two of the articles of impeachment allege the judge can to sexually assault of these two women judge kent did not admit everything that the victims have alleged nonetheless his admission that he had nonconsensual sex nonconsensual sexual contact with the women is indeed a powerful one indeed any unwanted sexual touching can be considered a sexual assault so judge kent by his very words has come to close to admitting that he assaulted the women the only question is the extent of the assault that question has been addressed by the sworn testimony of the women before the taskforce in short the executive branch may prosecute behavior violates the criminal laws and the judicial branch may punish that federal judge by his conviction but only the congress can remove a federal judge of that term is that his behavior unfit to hold his office  justice as part of the plea agreement five counts of the indictment charging can with the sexual assault of two court employees were dismissed last week we heard from the two women the judge can't sexually assaulted their testimony about judge ken's conduct was troubling especially because samuel can abuse his authority as a federal judge to intimidate his staff and to silence can continue to abuse his position of authority by refusing to resign immediately on june fifteenth judge can't will start serving a thirty three month prison sentence by resigning effective first two thousand and ten judge can is attempting to collect his full judicial salary for another year even while he said federal prison judge can't and his lawyer are banking on the fact that impeachment take time literally every day he remains in office judge can receive his taxpayer funded sali his continued attempts to game the judicial system are an affront to america system of justice that's why we're here today to put an end to judge can abuse of authority and exploitation of american taxpayer i am not unsympathetic to the claims the judge can endure a difficult personal traged and may suffer from mental illness however he does not have the right to continue to serve as a federal judge judge can't remain on the bench 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 it's got to justice by lying and justice for the victims who were subjected to abuse and humiliation judge unanimously by the house last month the task force and judicial impeachment was directed to inquire whether judge should be impeached as chairman the task force i'd like to report on our work and provide the members of the full committee with a brief  history of this matter as well as an overview of the relevant facts as a task force we work to proceed in a fair open deliberate and thorough manner and we have done so on a bipartisan basis in august of two thousand and eight federal grand jury returned a three count indictment against judge samuel after department of justice criminal investigation a superseding indictment filed in january two thousand and nine added three additional counts total six charged according to the indictment judge can't is alleged to have committed acts constituting abuse of sexual contact and attempted aggravated sexual abuse in two thousand and three and two thousand and seven against cathy mcbroom a deputy clerk occasionally assigned a judge has  twenty to forty one by up to life in prison finally the indictment charges with one count of obstruction of justice for corruptly obstructing influencing and impeding an official proceeding by making false statements to the special investigative committee of the u court of appeals for the circuit regarding his unwanted sexual contact on february twenty third two thousand and nine the day his criminal trial was set to begin judge can't plead guilty to obstruction of justice as part of plea he admitted to engaging in an consensual sexual contact with him without her permission in two thousand and three in two thousand and seven can't also admitted to engaging in an consensual sexual contact with ms wilkerson without her permission from two thousand  to release two thousand and five finally he admitted that he falsely testified before the special investigative committee of the fifth circuit regarding his unwanted sexual contact with ms wilkerson in particular can admitted making false statements with regard to his repeated non himself on june fifteenth for incarceration article one section two of the constitution vests the sole power of impeachment in the house of representatives on june third two thousand and nine the task force and judicial held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether judge conduct provides a sufficient basis for impeachment and to develop upon which to develop a record upon which to recommend articles impeachment to the full committee at the hearing a number of official documents related to the matter w judicial impeachment scholar from the university of pittsburgh school of law both testified that they were sexually assaulted by a judge on a number of occasions and detail a number of these incidents where the task force professor hellmann provided professor hellman noted that historical precedent provides that the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors the constitutional standard to justify impeachment generally described that constituted an abuse of power or otherwise render the judge hold office professor hellmann and his expert opinion concluded that the facts in the record rose to the level as to warrant the task force invited to testify but he declined our offer the task force received correspondence from judge witnesses also declined to appear or participate in the hearing yesterday sent a letter to the committee questioning the veracity of the two women claiming that there are others who contradict and stating that their testimony was unnecessary because and help not that not that he informed neither neither the judge just surrendered to custody in five days 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 it is warranted a member has the following materials before them the original indictment dated august eighth two thousand and eight the superseding indictment the plea agreement the factual basis of the plea the transcript of the plea hearing of the court's judgment dated may eleventh two thousand and nine a letter from chief judge jones of the u s court of appeals for the fifth circuit denying  disability claim dated may twenty seventh of this year a statement of judge kant provided to the task force in lieu of appearing dated june first letter to the white house reporting to resign effective june one two thousand and ten the judicial council conference to the speaker of the house dated june ninth of this year a transcript of the taskforce hearing that took place on june third the following materials have been cited to the members as well and are article three section one provides that the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts hold their offices during good behavior and challenge stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office article two section four 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 according to testimony received by the task force historical precedent in the case that there are two categories of conduct that may justify impeachment serious abuse of power and conduct that demonstrates that an official is unworthy to fill the office that he holds the task force has concluded that the full record before us establishes that should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors yesterday the task force met and unanimously voted in favor of recommending four articles impeachment for consideration by the full committee these articles were subsequently introduced in the house by full committee chairman conyers ranking member smith along with the full membership of the task force in the form of house resolution five twenty incident to his position as a 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 the judge sexually assaulted ms mcbroom and both employees of the court on one or more occasions furthermore judge can't corruptly obstructed influence or impeded an official proceeding when he made false statements the fifth circuit special investigative committee and finally the record demonstrates the judge can make material false the judge who sentenced mr kent to incarceration stated a stain on the justice system itself where the house of representatives to sit idly by and allow mr kant to continue to hold the office of u s district judge all sitting in prison and after committing such high crimes and occurrence within the halls of congress in fact no federal judge has been impeached in the last twenty years is a power that congress utilizes only in cases involving very serious allegations of misconduct however when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised and the house of representatives has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system the impeachment task force has taken the testimony of two women victimized by judge can the task force has also taken other expert testimony and has conducted its own investigation including working with the fifth circuit the department of just federal bureau of investigation and other parties together relevant evidence these efforts have yielded information that paints the clear picture the judge can't has engaged in conduct including obstruction of justice and repeated sexual assaults on court employees which merit the very serious step of issuing articles of impeachment against judge can specifically by his own admission judge can't lied to the investigating committee of the fifth circuit which was looking into his misconduct involving t court employees judge can't pled guilty to the felony obstruction of justice charge and will serve thirty three months in federal prison beginning next monday however the evidence has show that judge can also separately lied to the department of justice and the f b i when questioned about the nature of his contacts with these women in addition judge can't has admitted to engaging in nine consensual sexual contact with at least two court employees at a hearing convened by the task force on june three two thousand and nine we heard the stories of the two women that judge can't victimize the story filled in the gaps in judge canted mission and showed the repeated violent sexual abuse of these two women is worth noting again that judge kant was invited to appear at the hearing before the taskforce and explain why his conduct does not justify impeachment his attorney was also invited to participate however both judge can and his attorney declined to attend based on the evidence gathered by the task force during its investigation the task force voted unanimously yesterday to recommend to the full committee for articles of impeachment against judge can which we are considering today the first article describes the repeated sexual assault on donna wilkerson accord employees the second article describes the repeated sexual assault of kathy mcbroom another court employee the third article describes investigation what they questioned him about his conduct is my strong recommendation to members of this committee adopt these articles of impeachment and i thank you without objection other member statements will be included in the record employees associated with the court that is incompatible with the trust and confidence in him as a judge as follows number one is the united states district judge in the southern district of d chairman and to again offer a public apologies as i did in the taskforce meeting not only to the witnesses but certainly to the american people for having to exercise our responsibilities in an impeachment proceeding for the first time in twenty years and to suggest that in fact this is not a reflection on the  integrity of the judiciary of the united states of america but it is a reflection on the responsibility of this committee to perform its duties and to ensure that we can  hold up to higher standards and so i simply want to refer us to the constitution and why in my assessment we are where we are today particularly i want to take note of the fact that the constitution starts with the language we the people and whatever we do under the constitution were dictated by a hearing to the value of the american people in article three pacific know that a judge holds his or her position during good behavior we also are drawn to section four of article two which indicates that those who already hold civil offices ought to be impeached for the conviction of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors and so the troubling part of this whole story is the opportunity that this had to correct his weight and i too am sympathetic for the representations of the middle issues that this judge faced during the loss of his first wife however it should have been characterized in treatment but yet it seemed to be characterized as evidence in the superseding plea in count six where it is admitted that  sexual improprieties were consensual they were voluntary and in essence that proved to not be the case in a plea agreement that took place subsequently  the defendant then agreed to plead guilty to count six and that was the count that indicated that i did not tell the truth to this established committee that was to hear me out maybe that could have been the committee where i expressed the concerns of my physical state apparently that was not the case only a denial that we did not touch this particular complainant or this particular witness be in any way other than that it was consensual and so we have a plea agreement that indicates that count six declared as an obstruction of justice because of falsely indicating facts that were not true then we went to the actual sentencing and i share these words with my colleague that in the sentencing hearing the judge presiding made the point that under the law in the constitution you are presumed to be innocent which means you do not have to prove your innocence or prove anything at all you simply must be present for the trial and the burden of proof lies entirely on the government do you understand the judge in this instance just can't say yes or the court said however if i accept your guilty plea this morning each of those rights that i have just identified that you will be weighed and given up do you fully understand that yes sir and knowing that it is your intent to enter a plea of guilty this morning to this charge that we could offer to this individual has been waived and given up and frankly what we see is the fact that someone has established themselves as being unworthy of holding this office and more importantly as an individual who believe in the sanctity of the of the workplace in terms of the rights of women and others who are sometimes openly if you will be eliminated from the rights of the constitution and the conference of the united states to the speaker of the house and its accompanying determination that consideration of impeachment may be warranted that objection i understand that the general in california has to go to a markup on her bill articles in the case of judge nixon the language was similar where four judge walter l next and junior is guilty of an appreciable offense should be removed from office similarly with respect to the impeachment of bligation here is to return articles of impeachment if there's a sufficient basis for members to believe that conduct has been committed that warrants a judge's removal from office u ltimately it will be the senate that will try and reach a resolution of whether the judge is found guilty but this language is a term of art and by pleading it this way we don't presume that we have found this in a trial but rather that we have found sufficient evidence to believe that he is guilty to pass the articles on to the senate for trial thank the gentleman for his explanation and worth while to get that mr winner is not recorded mr winter votes al mr chairman thirty members voted we did not have any members voting  nay this courthouse secretary clerk will read article two article two incident to his position as a united states district court judge samuel b cantor has engaged in conduct with respect to employees letter and he declined to do so much of the contents of that letter is based on an anonymous caller who evidently called the judge's counsel at some point earlier in the week and i don't know whether that anonymous caller is referenced in the information from other people in the courthouse i guess would be third hand he n again out of abundance of fairness if it is upset and outraged is a band about a judge who would abuse his authority and mistreat people within his control if there is some type of recognize sexual orientation of someone toward those who are vulnerable of a specific gender within your employment i just don't want to run afoul of any potential hate crime laws if it turns out he's sexually oriented toward vulnerable women under another committee and as a member of the task force i'd like to say that i support every single article of impeachment here there was more than enough to impeach this judge and to have him removed from  office and i hope to be back after i take care of my other business to be engaged in this as well thank you very much mr i thank you mr chairman mr chairman and we have identified five hundred forty seven different paraphilia and it seems to me that judge can does have a problem and it was raised by our judge from texas mr gohmert and surely in that list of five hundred forty seven which have been apparently protected by this committee and by the full house of representatives there must be a clinical definition of judge paraphilia and i would point out that we may be finding ourselves  crossways with the conclusion of this committee although i support this impeachment hearing for all of us and i bring this issue up because i believe that when we start protecting people based upon their behavior we bring up this very dim a new problem for circuit which was investigating allegations of misconduct by judge kent the clerk will read the article article three samuel be corruptly obstructed influenced or impeded an official proceeding anted sexual contact with cathy mcbroom and individuals other than cap room number four on or about june eighth two thousand and seven judge kent made false statements to the committee regarding his unwanted sexual contact with donna as follows a judge can falsely stated to the committee that the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with diana wilkerson was one his advances were unwelcome no further contact occurred and as he knew judge karen continued such advances even after she asked him to stop number five judge kant was indicted in pl committee judge described as a stain on the justice system itself where for judge samuel b kent is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office are there any amendments to article three  and that he obviously committed the crime because he pled guilty he was disappointed he didn't the judge didn't get a medical disability but he does not request the judge be allowed to be paid as a judge while he serving time in prison that he had no special information that he was interviewed by the judges interviewed by a grand jury and that he didn't know of any  mr chairman twenty eight members voted one member passed a majority having voted in favor article four is adopted a reporting quorum being present the question is now under supporting the resolution chairman twenty nine members voted on we didn't have any members voting thank you a majority having voted in favor of the resolution is already reported favorably to the house members will have two days to submit