PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jun 19, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Impeaches Samuel B. Kent, judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sets forth articles of impeachment.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that, incident to his position as a U.S. district court judge, Samuel B. Kent engaged in conduct with respect to employees associated with the court that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge.
Declares that Judge Kent, on one or more occasions, sexually assaulted Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson by: (1) touching their private areas directly and through their clothing against their will; and (2) attempting to cause them to engage in sexual acts with him.
Declares that Judge Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding relating to Ms. McBroom's complaint, and made false statements to a Fifth Circuit Special Investigative Committee about his unwanted sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson.
States that Judge Kent was indicted and pled guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for the felony of obstruction of justice on the basis of false statements made to the Committee.
Declares that Judge Kent made material false and misleading statements about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on or about November 30, 2007, and to FBI agents and representatives of the Department of Justice on or about August 11, 2008.
Declares that Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to Article IV of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 372 - 0, 1 Present (Roll no. 418). (consideration: CR H7066-7067)
House roll call 418 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to Article IV of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 372 - 0, 1 Present (Roll no. 418).(consideration: CR H7066-7067)
House roll call 418 · Individual votesOn agreeing to Article III of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 381 - 0 (Roll no. 417). (consideration: CR H7066)
House roll call 417 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to Article III of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 381 - 0 (Roll no. 417).(consideration: CR H7066)
House roll call 417 · Individual votesOn agreeing to Article II of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 385 - 0 (Roll no. 416). (consideration: CR H7065-7066)
House roll call 416 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to Article II of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 385 - 0 (Roll no. 416).(consideration: CR H7065-7066)
House roll call 416 · Individual votesOn agreeing to Article I of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 389 - 0 (Roll no. 415). (consideration: CR H7064-7065)
House roll call 415 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to Article I of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 389 - 0 (Roll no. 415).(consideration: CR H7064-7065)
House roll call 415 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 520.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H7053-7067)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 75.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-159.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-159.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.520 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.520 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.520 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.520 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.