House votes on Hegseth impeachment resolution — NBC News

[0:00] and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both chambers of Congress [0:07] agreed to house concurrent resolution 86, thereby disregarding Congress's express and lawful [0:13] direction that United States Armed Forces be removed from such hostilities. Two, failing and [0:20] refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to withdraw [0:26] United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran. Three, directing the Department of Defense [0:33] to ignore the duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive [0:39] branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress's [0:45] exercise of its war powers. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained [0:52] unlawful orders that treated the executive branch as possessing authority to determine [0:57] when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress's direction [1:04] to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. By implementing those orders, he effectuated and [1:12] practiced the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran, despite Congress's [1:19] exclusive constitutional authority to declare war, and despite Congress's formal action directing [1:25] the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities. This abuse of office frustrated [1:32] Congress's ability to exercise its most solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of an [1:39] unlawful war, and ignored, and thus nullified, the fundamental safeguard designed to prevent [1:45] United States Armed Forces from being used at the will of the executive alone. In all of this, Secretary [1:53] Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of [2:01] constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest [2:07] injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, [2:14] has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, [2:20] and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter [2:26] Brian Hegseth thus warns impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and [2:32] enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article III, waging war and [2:42] contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Section 5b. The Constitution provides that the [2:49] House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United [2:55] States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and [3:01] conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct, while Secretary of Defense, [3:09] Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United [3:15] States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [3:22] especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, [3:28] and that the Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, [3:36] vest in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military Administrative and [3:43] Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the [3:50] President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and vests in him operational control over [3:55] wars lawfully authorized by Congress, in an effort to statutory delineate the circumstances under which the [4:04] President may introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent Congressional [4:09] authorization. The 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, [4:16] the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. [4:26] Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of Section [4:32] 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1544B of Title 50, United States Code. Section 5B of the [4:43] War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or is [4:51] required to be submitted to Congress by the President of the United States upon the Executive introducing [4:58] United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in [5:04] hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, whichever is earlier, the Executive shall terminate [5:12] any use of the United States Armed Forces unless the Congress, one, has declared war or has enacted a [5:20] specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, two, has extended by law such 60-day [5:27] period, or three, is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section [5:36] 5B further provides that, absent a former Congressional declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for [5:44] use of military force, or an extensive extension of the 60-day period enacted into law during that [5:52] period, such 60-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional 30 days if the President [6:00] determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessary respecting the safety of [6:09] United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt [6:17] removal of such forces. With respect to United States Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the [6:26] Islamic Republic of Iran and indicating reliance on the fealty to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as legal [6:35] justification for entering the United States Armed Forces into hostilities with Iran without the [6:41] initiatory authority of Congress, President Donald J. Trump transmitted on March 2, 2026 a letter informing [6:49] Congress of action taken consistent with the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1543-A-3, [7:01] Public Law 93-148, Section 4-A-87-Stat-555, and 50 U.S.C. 1543-B, Public Law 93-148, Section 4-B-87-Stat-555, [7:18] concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on February 28, 2026. In the 60-day period following said [7:26] transmission, Congress did not enact and still has not enacted any declaration or specific statutory [7:34] authorization for use of United States Armed Forces and hostilities against Iran or extended the [7:41] applicable 60-day period by law despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out its [7:47] constitutional responsibilities. Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written [7:54] certification required to invoke the additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1, 2026. Even [8:01] assuming the President had validly invoked the separate and limited 30-day extension, it would [8:09] likewise have expired on June 1, 2026. Without lawful cause or excuse, and despite the Executive's [8:17] initial observance of the reporting requirements under Section 4-A of the War Powers Resolution, [8:23] Section 1543-A of Title 50 United States Code, through the President's transmission to Congress of [8:31] a letter acknowledging the commencement of the statutory timeline, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, [8:38] authorize, and sustain the use of the United States Armed Forces and hostilities in the Islamic Republic [8:44] Republic of Iran after the expiration of every potentially applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegseth [8:55] continued such hostilities after the 60-day period expired on May 1, 2026 and after June 1, 2026, [9:04] the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day withdrawal period would have expired. Despite the [9:11] absence of the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or extension enacted by [9:18] Congress, Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal [9:25] period by directing United States Armed Forces to continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic [9:33] of Iran in a manner calculated not to terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and bring about their [9:40] proper removal, but rather to continue prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives [9:49] not authorized by Congress, and has therefore directed the Department of Defense in violation of Section 1544B [9:56] of Title 50 United States Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means [10:04] 1. Directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after the [10:11] expiration of the 60-day period established under Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [10:19] despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, [10:24] or an extension enacted by Congress. 2. Continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in the [10:33] pursuit of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable [10:41] additional 30-day period, notwithstanding such 30-day period could be used only when required by [10:48] unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States [10:56] armed forces and the course of bringing about their proper removal as certified as necessary by the [11:02] President of the United States, a certification never transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. Trump [11:08] pursuant to Section 1544B of Title 50 United States Code. 3. Failing and refusing to take all necessary steps [11:18] within his authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the unauthorized use of United States armed forces [11:24] armed forces and promptly withdraw such forces from hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4. [11:32] 4. Directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary, [11:39] thereby substituting the judgment of the Executive Branch for the Constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress, [11:46] and nullifying the express command that the unauthorized use of United States armed forces shall be terminated. [11:54] 5. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that, [12:03] in practice, displace the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress by permitting the Executive [12:11] Branch to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, whether statutory deadlines [12:18] governing unauthorized hostilities must be obeyed, and whether a war may continue after the expiration of [12:25] every period permitted by law. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as [12:33] Secretary of Defense and subversive of Constitutional Government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and [12:40] justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense, [12:47] Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution, [12:53] if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the [12:59] rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, [13:05] and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [13:13] Article 4. Ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties. The Constitution provides that the [13:20] House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United [13:26] States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and [13:32] conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors in his conduct as Secretary of Defense [13:40] and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Secretary of Defense [13:47] and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States [13:52] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. [13:59] Especially during the Commission of War, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department [14:05] of Defense in that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the [14:14] Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the [14:22] Shajara-Tahara Elementary School in Minab-Hormansgan Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme of [14:31] course of conduct that affected the systemic deterioration and removal of the Department of Defense [14:39] infrastructure that Congress has mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and non-military [14:45] objects during military operations. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a war-making [14:52] culture at the Department of Defense, which he boasts as being dismissive of stupid rules of [14:59] engagement with preference for maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Such combination chilled and [15:07] rendered ineffective components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, [15:14] and responding to civilian harm by directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably [15:20] dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives. Secretary [15:27] Hegseth thereby effected the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his [15:34] command by requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeting and legal review system [15:42] that he had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and [15:49] the government's armed forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. Secretary [15:55] Hegseth engaged in this scheme of course of conduct through the following means. One, Secretary Hegseth [16:05] willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the requirements of Section 184 of Title 10, United States Code, [16:12] by systematically dismantling civilian protection infrastructure in that, A, Secretary Hegseth submitted a [16:21] legislative proposal to Congress on May 29, 2025, requesting a repeal of Section 184 of Title 10, United States Code, [16:31] the statutory requirement for civilian protection systems at the Department of Defense, even as Congress [16:38] had fully funded such systems for FY 2025 and FY 2026. And after Congress did not enact the requested repeal, [16:49] Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities have been [16:55] halted. B, Secretary Hegseth intentionally stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm [17:02] Mitigation and Response Action Plan, CHMR-AP, and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of [17:11] Excellence, CPCOE, despite it being congressionally mandated by Section 1082 of the James M. Inhofe National [17:20] Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117-263, and Section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense [17:29] Authorization Act, Public Law 115-232. C, Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's Casualty Tracking [17:39] Database, the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports so that should [17:46] civilians be harmed as a result of United States military action, there would be no functioning [17:52] system within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such harm. D, Secretary Hegseth [18:00] willfully refused to ensure that DOD components receive adequate resources to satisfy CHMR requirements, [18:08] including by removing more than 90 percent of civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to [18:15] combatant commands. E, Secretary Hegseth failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy any of the 11 [18:26] objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm [18:34] during armed conflict, thereby rendering every such component of the Department of Defense's civilian [18:41] harm prevention apparatus partially or totally ineffective by the time United States military [18:47] combat operations against Iran began in early 2026. Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, [18:56] the senior most judged Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining [19:03] independent legal oversight of the combat operations and legal advice to commanders on the law of armed [19:09] conflict. Three, Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense Strategy with all references to [19:18] civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from the prior defense policy [19:26] that had recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm mitigation as a strategic priority. [19:33] Four, Secretary Hegseth, from the outset of his tenure, instigated a departmental culture hostile to the law of armed conflict [19:43] and the protection of civilians through his public and repeated degeneration of rules of engagement as stupid, [19:50] politically correct, politically correct and overbearing in that A. On September 30th, 2025, while addressing [19:57] the largest assembly gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, Secretary Hegseth boasted that [20:05] we, the United States military, don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. B. Upon unlawfully renaming the [20:11] Department of Defense the Department of War on September 5th, 2025, he poetically proclaimed, [20:21] maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct. C. During his confirmation [20:31] hearing on January 14th, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had thought very deeply about the [20:38] balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the [20:46] opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. [20:53] Five, Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the traditional [20:59] Pentagon press corps and imposing credentialing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or [21:06] publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm and on [21:12] matters affecting the welfare and safety of the United States service members by journalists most [21:18] familiar with the Department of Defense. These actions were not isolated administrative or rhetorical [21:25] choices. Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, [21:33] and civilian protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current [21:39] status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets, [21:47] as circumstances change and prevent or mitigate civilian harm. The foreseeable consequences of Secretary [21:55] Hegseth's scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shijara-Tahara Bay Elementary School, [22:02] which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of [22:09] Defense targeting process. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows. [22:22] One, on the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9.45 a.m. local time, the United States, [22:31] in partnership with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury, commencing the 2026 Iran War. Within the [22:38] first hour of the U.S.-Israel offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from [22:48] United States Navy warships impacted the elementary school between 10.23 and 10.45 a.m. local time, [22:57] two, because the war was commenced mid-morning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian working [23:05] week, students were in attendance at the school. Despite an attempted evacuation of the school, [23:11] at the time of the first cruise missiles impact, between 170 and 264 students were present in the [23:19] facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of seven and 12 years. Three, whereas it is unclear [23:27] how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact, which caused a partial destruction of the [23:33] structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that the students were then sheltered in [23:38] a prayer room deeper in the facility, waiting for rescuers, when a second and third missile in rapid [23:45] succession impacted the building. Four, reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school [23:52] indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed, with some reports suggesting the civilian death toll [23:59] surpassed 170. Those killed included at least 120 school children, 26 teachers, seven parents attempting [24:08] to evacuate their children, and a school bus driver, a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic, [24:14] and the six-month-old unborn child of one of the teachers also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 [24:22] other individuals were wounded. Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, [24:30] which Secretary Hexeth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely [24:36] upon whether civilians were deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of [24:43] distinction, target verification, and feasible precaution require military decision makers to determine [24:50] in good faith that an object is a lawful military objective on the basis of information reasonably available [24:58] at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and review required by those obligations may render [25:05] an attack unlawful. A failure directly caused by the Secretary Hexeth's dismantling of key infrastructure [25:13] designed to prevent such errors. With respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional [25:19] failures manifested in systemic non-compliance with Department of Defense targeting doctrine and legal [25:25] guidance. The strike on the military school was not an isolated targeting failure, divorced from the [25:33] conduct of the Secretary of Defense, nor can Secretary Hexeth's conduct be dismissed as a single targeting error [25:41] or isolated failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hexeth sought to repeal [25:49] legal congressionally mandated civilian protection requirements, dismantle the department's civilian [25:56] harm mitigation infrastructure, remove the senior most judge advocates general responsible for [26:02] independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the national defense strategy, and publicly [26:09] degenerated legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened nearly every [26:19] institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military [26:25] and then presided over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three times, [26:32] killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly children. Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of [26:40] judgment but an extraordinary abuse of powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for [26:47] the civilians. His department was obligated to protect and the service members he was entrusted to lead. [26:54] In all of this, Secretary Hexeth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and [27:00] directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, [27:07] chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians and therefore [27:14] forcibly affected the death and injury of over 200 civilians to the manifest injury of the United States. [27:22] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain [27:28] a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of [27:35] the United States Armed Forces and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a [27:42] manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment [27:48] and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit [27:56] under the United States. Article 5, extrajudicial killings. The Constitution provides that the House of [28:05] Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, [28:11] including the Secretary of Defense shall be removed from office on impeachment for and [28:17] conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, [28:24] Peter Brian Hexeth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, [28:31] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [28:37] especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense [28:42] in that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth directed the Department of [28:49] Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons aboard seagoing [28:57] vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, [29:03] principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that [29:09] shielded independent legal review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported [29:15] legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization, [29:21] and displaced long-standing president, and codified maritime law enforcement practices that are [29:27] jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such place [29:36] the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps elements. While doing so, [29:43] Secretary Hexeth also oversaw orders denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including secondary [29:51] strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were ordered and abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, [30:00] thereby engaging members of our armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries [30:08] to subject American service members to the same treatment, by subjecting persons merely suspected of [30:16] criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, [30:25] and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets. [30:31] Secretary Hexeth arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, [30:37] and executioner, and asserted the unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. [30:44] Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United [30:51] States and the Western world and contrary to United States law and customary international law. [30:57] This conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its armed forces, damaged the [31:03] diplomatic standing of the United States, and injured the interests of the nation. Secretary Hexeth engaged in [31:11] this scheme of course or course of conduct through the following means. One, Secretary Hexeth authorized strikes [31:19] beginning on September 2, 2025 without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, [31:26] Clause 11 of the United States Constitution and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific [31:32] statutory authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon [31:39] the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces as provided in Chapter 33 of Title 50, [31:47] United States Code 2. Secretary Hexeth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels [31:55] alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international waters, comprising of at least 69 separate attack events, [32:02] 46 in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 21 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified locations which at least struck 73 [32:15] vessels and killed at least 243 individuals. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth displaced the statutory framework [32:24] established by Sections 70503 and 70504 of Title 46 United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated [32:35] maritime narcotic offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as federal crimes subject to [32:42] apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States District Court, and instead treated such [32:50] offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting. B. Secretary Hexeth disregarded the statutory restrictions [33:00] in Section 274 and 275 of Title X United States Code, governing direct participation by members of the Army, [33:09] Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, including federal narcotics [33:15] enforcement by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking, [33:21] absent any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of military force or other statutory [33:29] authorization for such direct military action. C. Secretary Hexeth disregarded the maritime law [33:36] enforcement framework established by Sections 102 and 522 of Title 14 United States Code, as well as Section [33:45] 279 of Title X United States Code, under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct [33:51] interdiction, interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest, and he did so by directing members of the Army, [33:58] Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law enforcement processes. [34:05] C. Secretary Hexeth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an [34:14] executive order EXORD directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be [34:22] members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organization, DTOs, as follows. [34:28] C. Secretary Hexeth established guidelines that I. used designated terrorist organizations as a [34:37] targeting category, notwithstanding the term, is not a congressionally created designation conferring [34:43] authority to use military force. Double I. Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, [34:51] but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or affiliated of a DTO, [34:59] a threshold lower than the near certainty standard established for drone strikes on suspected Al-Qaeda [35:06] militants during the congressionally authorized global war on terror. And Triple I. Did not require [35:13] the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association [35:20] with a DTO. C. Secretary Hexeth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw orders resulting in the denial of [35:55] quarter two and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwrecked survivors of initial strikes, [36:01] including A. On September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, the United States Navy [36:07] attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and the nearby [36:13] Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel. Approximately 45 [36:19] minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered killing both [36:24] survivors. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth has endangered members of our armed forces in future [36:30] military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same [36:36] treatment and be. On December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels [36:42] approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocoast, Guatemala, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, [36:49] killing three persons and leaving eight others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been [36:53] underway for approximately four months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors. [37:00] Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight [37:06] shipwrecked survivors had died at sea. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth has endangered members of our armed [37:12] forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the [37:18] same treatment. Five, Secretary Hexeth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent [37:25] legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including [37:31] A. Secretary Hexeth removed the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force [37:37] without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by Judge [37:44] Advocates tasked tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat operations, [37:50] and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025, that he did not [37:56] want military lawyers to serve as roadblocks to orders that are given by a Commander-in-Chief. [38:01] B. Secretary Hexeth employed an interagency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four [38:08] political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central [38:14] Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified memorandum [38:21] purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their [38:27] execution falsely asserting the following. A. The United States is engaged in a non-international armed [38:33] conflict, NIAC, with 24 Latin American designated terrorist organizations, DTOs, thereby attempting to [38:42] displace the governing law enforcement framework as established in paragraph 2 and substitute an armed [38:47] conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the [38:53] absence of congressional authorization for such military action, notwithstanding. [38:58] I. Pursuant to Little v. Barham, 1804, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 2014, [39:08] an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority, conferred by Congress, or legalized [39:14] conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute. Double I. The strikes do not constitute hostilities within the [39:21] meaning of Chapter 33 of Title 50 United States Code because they do not place United States personnel in [39:27] danger. Presumptably on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that [39:33] would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone or any air strike against a [39:38] target lacking air defense capabilities cannot also constitute hostilities in Triple I. The DTOs are [39:45] engaged in armed violence against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence [39:52] as financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against [39:57] cocaine shipments, and that the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage, [40:02] a rationale inconsistent with the EXORD targeting guidelines described in paragraph 3, which did not [40:08] require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel, and instead authorized targeting based on alleged DTO [40:14] membership or affiliation. Secretary Hexeth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense, [40:22] not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force, resulting in the summary execution of at least [40:29] 243 persons in international waters, but also by using his office to compel members of the armed [40:35] forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed [40:41] upon the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hexeth endangered members of the United States [40:48] armed forces in the future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American [40:54] service members to such treatment. Secretary Hexeth further endangered United States law enforcement [40:59] personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law enforcement practices of [41:06] interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. By demonstrating that vessels [41:12] merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed rather than [41:17] interdicted and arrested, Secretary Hexeth foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard such [41:23] vessels will perceive future encounters with the United States authorities as threats to their lives and [41:28] respond with lethal force rather than surrender. In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the [41:34] persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign, but also made lawful enforcement of United States [41:39] narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast Guard and other federal personnel charged with carrying [41:45] them out. In all this, Secretary Hexeth has acted in a matter contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense [41:54] and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, [41:59] and to the manifest injury of the United people of the United States of America, wherefore Secretary of Defense [42:05] Peter Hexeth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, [42:11] the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, [42:16] and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hexeth [42:23] thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy [42:28] any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article VI, Suppressing Free Speech. [42:36] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of [42:40] impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [42:45] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other crimes of [42:52] other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hexeth, [42:58] in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, [43:03] and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office, abused the powers entrusted to him by [43:08] retaliating against a member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech, and attempting [43:14] to subject a member of a coordinate branch of government to executive branch punishment for [43:19] the exercise of his legislative and oversight responsibilities in that. On November 18, 2025, Senator Mark [43:26] Kelly, a retired United States Navy Captain and National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA [43:33] astronaut, who flew 39 combat missions during the first Gulf War, and who sits on the Senate Armed [43:39] Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity as [43:44] a senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed Forces stating, [43:48] Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. Despite such a statement being consistent with [43:55] decisions in United States v. Kenan, 1969, and United States v. Kelly, 1973, Secretary Hexeth weaponized [44:05] the Department of Defense to retaliate against and intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. [44:11] Secretary Hexeth did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a sitting United States senator who cannot [44:18] fulfill his role in representative government if he fears executive branch reprisals for expressing [44:23] his views. As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd, 1966, representative government requires that [44:30] legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. Members of Congress, [44:37] moreover, enjoy speech or debate immunity. Under Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States [44:44] Constitution and Senator Kelly, as a retired service member, is entitled to the full breadth of First [44:52] Amendment protection. Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hexeth retaliated against and sought to [44:59] intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct [45:05] intended to interfere with Congress's constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, [45:11] grossly expand Article 2 powers to expense of both the legislative and judicial branches of [45:17] government and to establish a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired [45:22] United States service members and inflict irreparable harm upon the First Amendment freedoms. [45:28] Secretary Hexeth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. [45:32] One, on November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, through a social media post on X, [45:39] threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court-martial proceedings [45:44] or administrative measures for his statement. Two, on November 25, 2025, Secretary Hexeth directed the [45:52] Secretary of the Navy to review Senator Kelly. Three, on January 5, 2026, Secretary Hexeth issued a [45:59] secretarial letter of censure against Senator Kelly for A, saying you can refuse illegal orders. B, [46:07] saying he would always defend the Constitution. C, questioning the legality of military operations as a [46:14] member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. D, criticizing military leadership, [46:20] Hexeth, for surrounding himself with yes men. And E, allegedly accusing Secretary Hexeth of war crimes. [46:28] Four, in the letter of censure, Secretary Hexeth also threatened Senator Kelly with criminal prosecution or [46:36] further administrative action, including the reduction of Senator Kelly's retired military grade. [46:42] Should the Senator continue to question the legality of military operations or criticize Secretary [46:47] Hexeth? Five, in response to a January 12, 2026 complaint filed by Senator Mark Kelly [46:54] against Secretary Hexeth for retaliating against and intimidating the Senator for his First Amendment [47:00] protected speech, Secretary Hexeth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's motion for a [47:06] preliminary injunction, egregiously asserting A, Senator Kelly as a retired naval officer has [47:13] diminished First Amendment protections. B, Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's [47:18] constitutional rights, due to his statements relating to military affairs and his being a retired naval [47:25] officer, constitute non-justiciable military personnel decisions. C, Secretary Hexeth's opinions supersede the [47:33] court's jurisdiction to determine whether the government could censure, threaten, and financially [47:38] punish Senator Kelly because of his speech, N.D. Senator Kelly is required to exhaust military [47:43] administrative remedies before seeking relief in an Article III court, thereby seeking to place the [47:49] adjudication of Senator Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by the [47:54] executive branch. Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of Secretary of Defense for [48:01] politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly, for the Senator's criticism of conduct implicating [48:08] potential war crimes, Secretary Hexeth grossly violated or sought to violate the separation of powers by [48:15] attempting to subordinate both the legislative and judicial branches in matters concerning constitutional [48:21] rights to the authority of the Department of Defense. In the same effort, Secretary Hexeth sought, [48:27] without precedent, to extend to retired service members the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to [48:33] active duty service members under Parker v. Levy, 1974, including retired service members serving in Congress and [48:41] exercising constitutional oversight over the military. He further asserted in substance that the military, rather than Article III courts, [48:49] possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own actions conform to the [48:56] Constitution and laws of the United States. At minimum, with respect to the speech of retired service members, [49:02] despite such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, which holds that it is [49:10] emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, not the military. [49:16] The result of such effort, had Secretary Hexeth been successful, would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight [49:22] activities of nearly 20% of the current Congress, and whatever proportion of future Congresses may [49:28] consist of retired service members, as well as the speech of millions of other retired service members to the [49:34] will and discretion of the Department of Defense, without any immediate avenue of recourse outside the [49:39] Department to vindicate their constitutional rights. Such a result would constitute one of the most [49:45] extraordinary expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United States. In all of this, [49:51] Secretary Hexeth abused the powers of the Department of Defense by retaliating against and attempting to [49:57] intimidate a sitting United States Senator through the threats of punishment for speech protected by the [50:02] First Amendment to the United States Constitution in an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his [50:08] constitutional role in overseeing the executive branch. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth weaponized the [50:14] Department of Defense to chill a core function of the legislative branch, encroach upon the [50:20] constitutional role of the judicial branch, by seeking to insulate such retaliation from meaningful [50:25] judicial review, and through the precedent he sought to establish, place the First Amendment rights of [50:31] millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth, [50:37] by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the separation of powers, [50:44] if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties, [50:49] the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to his protection. [50:53] Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification [50:59] to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 7, [51:05] kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives [51:12] shall have the sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including [51:17] the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, [51:22] treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the Office of [51:27] Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of [51:33] Defense, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, [51:39] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [51:44] especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hexeth has abused the powers of the Department [51:50] of Defense in that. Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth directed the [51:56] Department of Defense to carry out an unprecedented military operation code name, Absolute Resolve, [52:02] to capture and kidnap President Nicolas Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, [52:08] and his wife Celia Flores from Venezuela, an act of war against a sovereign country. Executed under the [52:14] guise of narcotics law enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over [52:21] Venezuela's oil reserves. In doing so, he gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel, [52:28] in order to facilitate the illegal taking of national oil. To wit, immediately following such attack, [52:35] Secretary Hexeth appeared alongside President Donald J. Trump, during which the President announced in [52:40] reference to Venezuela, we're going to run the country until such time as we can do, we can do a [52:47] safe, proper, and judicious transition, so we don't have to be involved with, uh, having somebody else get [52:54] in. And we have the same situation that we had. We're going to run it, essentially. And we're going [53:01] to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, going in and [53:07] start making money. And we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so, [53:13] thus revealing the motives behind the foreseeable forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended [53:18] far beyond the narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated. [53:25] On January 3rd, 2026, Secretary Hexeth directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and [53:31] around Caracas, Venezuela, employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on the [53:37] ground, and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, [53:44] and electronic war aircraft, supported by a substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima [53:50] Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, which together penetrated Venezuelan [53:56] territory, suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracas [54:02] area, inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, [54:09] killed at least 83 people, including several civilians, and caused seven American casualties. [54:14] In doing so, one, Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders affecting the removal of the President of [54:23] a sovereign nation, placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted [54:29] substantial casualties, and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes acts of war. [54:35] Two, Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders violating Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States [54:43] Constitution, by I, ordering United States Armed Forces to commit an act of war against Venezuela, [54:50] without a declaration of war by Congress against such nation, and double I, making rules concerning [54:55] captors on land, a power specifically vested in Congress, where Congress had made no rules [55:01] authorizing or otherwise applicable to such operations, and three, Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders [55:08] and contribution of Section 2, C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541, C of Title 50, [55:22] United States Code, by entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3, [55:28] 2026, without a declaration of war and specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created [55:35] by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces. Through these [55:41] actions, Secretary Hexeth knowingly directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities against a [55:47] sovereign foreign nation without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, employing military [55:53] force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth [56:00] usurped Congress's constitutional authority over war and transformed the Department of Defense into an [56:06] instrument for objectives extending far beyond the apprehension of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of [56:12] narcotics law enforcement, including regime change and the acquisition of foreign OWA. In all of this, [56:17] Secretary Hexeth abused the powers of the Department of Defense, violated laws and treaty obligations of [56:24] the United States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers to executive objectives [56:30] neither authorized nor approved by Congress. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth, [56:35] by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the well-being of [56:40] United States military personnel, if allowed to remain in office, and is acted in a manner grossly [56:46] incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment and trial, [56:52] removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [56:59] Article 8, Unlawful War in Yemen. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives [57:05] shall have held the sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, [57:09] including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and [57:14] conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct, while Secretary of [57:20] Defense Peter Brian Hexeth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United [57:26] States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [57:36] especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department in that, [57:42] using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth directed the Department of Defense in a [57:48] manner leading to the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians, as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi [57:56] fighters, through the initiation and direction of Operation Rough Rider. The operation comprised more [58:04] than 1,100 strikes against targets in Yemen over approximately 52 days. In less than eight weeks, [58:11] there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen as United States military actions has caused in that [58:16] country than the preceding 23 years. Secretary Hexeth initiated and directed these hostilities in the [58:23] absence of any of the predicates required in Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for the [58:30] President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities. Moreover, Secretary Hexeth acknowledged [58:36] the absence of any imminent threat to the United States, further undermining any assertion of Article 2 [58:42] authority to initiate such hostilities without Congressional authorization. Secretary Hexeth initiated [58:49] and directed Operation Rough Rider without Congressional authority, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, [58:54] Clause 11 of the United States Constitution or statutory authorization in that 1. Secretary Hexeth executed [59:02] unlawful orders in contravention of Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541C of Title 50, [59:11] the United States Code by entering and sustaining United States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in [59:17] Yemen between March 15 and May 6, 2025, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, [59:25] or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, [59:31] or its armed forces. Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 4A of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [59:40] Section 1543A of Title 50 United States Code by continuing to direct United States Armed Forces into [59:47] hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite the President of the United States having failed to [59:53] notify Congress of such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement, as required by Section 4A and [1:00:00] notwithstanding that the President did not transmit such a report to Congress until March 28, 2025, thereby further [1:00:07] undermining any possible Article 2 authority for the continued hostilities, especially during such 13-day period. [1:00:13] 3. Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [1:00:20] Secretary Hexeth directed Operation Rough Rider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military [1:00:26] action, without prior Congressional authorization, as evidenced by a leaked signal chat involving [1:00:31] Secretary Hexeth concerning the potential execution of Operation Rough Rider, in which a [1:00:37] several senior United States government officials, including Secretary Hexeth, [1:00:41] each possessing unfettered access to military and intelligence information, advised there was no [1:00:46] immediate need to enter United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen, thereby asserting there [1:00:52] was no imminent threat to the United States, its possessions, or territories, or its Armed Forces as [1:00:58] indicated through the following communications. I. Vice President J.D. Vance stating, there is a strong [1:01:04] argument for delaying Operation Rough Rider a month. Double I. Then Acting Chief of Staff to the National [1:01:10] Security Advisor Joe Kent stating, there is nothing time-sensitive driving this timeline. We'll have [1:01:17] the exact same options in a month. Triple I. Central Intelligence Agency Director John [1:01:22] Ratcliffe stating, a delay would not negatively impact us, and additional time would be used to [1:01:28] identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership. I. V. Addressing the timing of [1:01:34] Operation Rough Rider, Secretary Hexeth stated, we can easily pause and V. Addressing the Vice President's [1:01:41] concerns regarding Operation Rough Rider's immediate commencement, Secretary Hexeth stated, VP, [1:01:47] I understand your concerns to immediate risk on waiting, one. This leaks, and we look indecisive, [1:01:55] two. Israel takes action first, or Gaza sees fire or falls apart, and we don't get to start this on our [1:02:02] own terms. This is not about the Houthis. It's about reestablishing deterrents, which Biden cratered. [1:02:10] Thus, Secretary Hexeth knew there was no imminent threat to the United States, its territories, [1:02:15] or possessions, or its armed forces. As such as a threat existed, there would have been no basis for [1:02:20] him to state that we can easily pause. Moreover, the only immediate risk identified by Secretary Hexeth [1:02:27] concerned media optics and Israeli affairs, rather than the direct affairs of the United States of [1:02:31] America, the nation to which his oath is sworn. In all of this, Secretary Hexeth abused the powers [1:02:37] entrusted to him as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional limits of the [1:02:42] use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to his own policy objectives, [1:02:48] notwithstanding his knowledge that no imminent threat to the United States existed, and demonstrated a [1:02:53] profound disregard for civilian life and the rule of law, the constitutional authority of Congress and [1:03:00] his duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the United States Armed Forces. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense [1:03:05] Peter Hexeth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful [1:03:11] conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed [1:03:17] Forces and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly [1:03:22] incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment and trial, [1:03:28] removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under [1:03:34] the United States. The resolution qualifies. For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek [1:03:47] recognition? Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk. The clerk will report the motion. Mr. [1:03:54] Issa of California moves to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman from [1:04:02] California is recognized for one hour. I heard adoption and yield back. Without objection, the [1:04:12] previous question is ordered on the motion. The question is on the motion to refer the resolution. [1:04:19] Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is not [1:04:29] adopted. Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky. I request the yeas and the nays. The gentleman from [1:04:42] Kentucky requests the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays are requested. Those in favoring a vote by the [1:04:47] yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will [1:04:57] record their votes by electronic device. To clause nine of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to [1:05:18] refer will be followed by a five-minute vote on ordering the previous question on the house resolution [1:05:25] 1650 and adoption of house resolution 1650 if ordered. This is a 15-minute vote. On this vote, [1:32:27] the yeas are 211. The nays are 204. The motion is adopted. The motion to reconsider is laid on the [1:32:41] table. Pursuant to clause eight of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the [1:32:50] previous question on house resolution 1650 on which the ayes and nays are ordered. The clerk will report [1:32:57] the title of the resolution. House calendar number 92. House resolution 1650. Resolution providing for [1:33:04] consideration of the bill H.R. 1013 to amend the federal securities laws to enhance 403b PANS for [1:33:11] further purposes. The question is on ordering the previous question. Members will record their [1:33:17] votes by electronic device. This is a five-minute vote. In this vote, the yeas are 213. The nays are 207. [1:40:35] The previous question is ordered. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. Those in favor of [1:40:43] of saying aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, for what purpose does the gentleman [1:40:53] from Massachusetts seek recognition? Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote. The recorded vote is [1:41:02] requested. Those favoring the recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having risen. A recorded vote [1:41:09] is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. On this vote, the yeas are 215. The [1:50:50] nays are 209. The resolution is adopted. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the [1:50:58] table. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia rise? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent [1:52:00] The gentleman will suspend. The House will be in order. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. [1:52:08] Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourned today, it adjourned to reconvene tomorrow at 11 [1:52:16] a.m. Without objection. For what purpose does the gentleman from Oregon seek recognition? [1:52:35] Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House out of order. Without objection, the [1:52:43] gentleman is recognized. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order. The House will be in order. [1:52:52] The House will be in order. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, [1:53:04] Mr. Speaker, it's been almost a month since we lost our babies in the Silver Rail Elementary School [1:53:12] shooting in Bend. And while the news outlets have since packed up and gone home, our community is still [1:53:20] grieving and holding on so tightly to the memories of our babies that we lost. Thanksgiving is just around [1:53:28] the corner and our families are staring down the holiday outfits that won't be worn, the pieces of pie [1:53:36] that'll go untouched, and the place cards beside chairs that won't be filled. My heart is with our [1:53:44] families, our students, our educators, and all of Oregon. To our babies that we lost and their families, [1:53:53] I am with you. Everyone is with you. And I know we can't keep saying goodbye to our children like this. [1:54:02] Our babies deserve to feel safe at school, at home, in our communities. They deserve better, [1:54:09] Mr. Speaker, and I promise to continue to fight to protect all of America's children. Mr. Speaker, [1:54:17] in this chamber, I ask that you join me in a moment of silence to remember everyone who was lost. [1:54:56] Let us keep watch over our babies. I yield back, Mr. Speaker. [1:55:03] The chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. For what purpose does the [1:55:16] gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition? The gentleman is recognized for one minute, [1:55:30] but the house will be in order. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize [1:55:43] the Northern Tier Community Action Corporation, which celebrates its 60th anniversary last month. [1:55:49] For decades, this non-profit has served men, women, and children across northern Pennsylvania, [1:55:54] and has helped countless people start their journey towards achieving the American [1:55:58] Oh, yeah. [1:56:01] Not only one man, but also one of the challenges that the other people start to be doing, [1:56:05] just a little bit, the children across the nation will be able to reach out. [1:56:09] Let's see if you are able to reach out for me as a child-t Republican. [1:56:09] I will be able to reach out the message to your children. [1:56:11] We're looking to reach out for the people who started their journey to go into a restaurant to us, [1:56:17] but they don't be able to reach out for the people who could really get out for us, [1:56:19] the people that are not only about us.