Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Impeaching Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved, that Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, also referred to as ``Secretary of War'' by the administration, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I: Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 2(c): The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that: The Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution--Article I, Section 8, Clause 11--vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the military, administrative, and clemency clause of the United States Constitution--Article II, Section 2, Clause 1-- establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress. In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Peter Brian Hegseth, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense, has executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code. Section 2(c) provides that ``the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to one, a declaration of war; two, specific statutory authorization; or three, a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' The War Powers Resolution further expressly provides that nothing contained therein shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities which the President would not otherwise possess in the absence of the resolution. Accordingly, the reporting and termination procedures subsequently established by the resolution do not themselves constitute affirmative statutory authorization to commence hostilities. Rather, the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities must rest upon one of the authorities or circumstances identified in section 2(c) in order for a conflict to be considered lawful. With respect to United States Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed and caused United States Armed Forces to be introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that one, Congress had not declared war against the Islamic Republic of Iran; two, Congress had not enacted any specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran; and three, no national emergency had been created by an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Furthermore, no imminent attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces existed, as affirmed in the March 17, 2026, resignation letter of Joe Kent, then-Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in which he stated: ``I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our Nation.'' The introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, therefore, satisfied none of the circumstances expressly identified in section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution and was undertaken, from its inception, without congressional authorization or independent Article II authority, thereby rendering both the initial introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, and all subsequent actions taken thereafter, unlawful. Secretary Hegseth, nevertheless, knowingly executed and implemented the unlawful order to commence such hostilities, employing powers, personnel, weapons, and resources of the Department of Defense to initiate military action against another sovereign nation, in violation of section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means: One, executing an unlawful order to commence hostilities, despite the absence of a declaration of war; specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. Two, continuing to employ the personnel and resources of the Department of Defense in these hostilities after their unlawful initiation and in the continued absence of any subsequent declaration of war or specific statutory authorization by Congress. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation, notwithstanding the absence of congressional authorization, an attack upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth, thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article II, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 5(c): The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that: The Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress. In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States of America enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code. Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions, and territories, without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution. With respect to the United States Armed Forces being engaged in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, pursuant to section 5(c), the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed, by the yeas and nays, to a concurrent resolution directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran, H. Con. Res. 86 of the 119th Congress. The House agreed to this concurrent resolution on June 3, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23, 2026, marking the first successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both Chambers of Congress in the history of the United States. In response, and without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct the United States Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 26, 2026, and continues to do so in violation of section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means: One, directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both Chambers of Congress agreed to H. Con. Res. 86, thereby disregarding Congress' express and lawful direction that the United States Armed Forces be removed from such hostilities. Two, failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to withdraw United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran. Three, directing the Department of Defense to ignore the duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress' exercise of its war powers. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that treated the executive branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress' directive to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. By implementing these orders, he effectuated, in practice, the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran, despite Congress' exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress' formal action directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities. This abuse of office frustrated Congress' ability to exercise its most solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of unlawful war, and ignored and, thus, nullified the fundamental safeguard designed to prevent United States Armed Forces from being used at the will of the executive alone. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth, thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article III, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 5(b): The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that the Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress. In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders, and continues to do so, in contravention of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1544(b) of title 50, United States Code. Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or required to be submitted to Congress by the President of the United States upon the Executive introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, whichever is earlier, the Executive shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces . . . unless Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of the United States Armed Forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 5(b) further provides that, absent a formal congressional declaration of war, specific statutory Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or an extension of the 60-day period enacted into law during that period ``such 60-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional 30 days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such Armed Forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.'' With respect to the United States Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and indicating reliance on and fealty to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as legal justification for entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities with Iran without the initiatory authority of Congress, President Donald J. Trump transmitted, on March 2, 2026, ``a letter informing Congress of action taken consistent with the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(3); Public Law 93-148, Sec. 4(a); (87 Stat. 555) and 50 U.S.C. 1543(b); Public Law 93-148, Sec. 4(b); (87 Stat. 555),'' concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on February 28, 2026. In the 60-day period following said transmission, Congress did not, and still has not, enacted any declaration or specific statutory authorization for the use of the United States Armed Forces in hostilities against Iran or extended the applicable 60-day period by law, despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written certification required to invoke the additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1, 2026. Even assuming the President had validly invoked that separate and limited 30-day extension, it would likewise have expired on June 1, 2026. Without lawful cause or excuse, and despite the Executive's initial observation of the reporting requirements under section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution, section 1543(a)(3) of title 50 United States Code, through the President's transmission to Congress of a letter acknowledging the commencement of the statutory timeline, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every potentially applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegseth continued such hostilities after the 60-day period expired on May 1, 2026, and after June 1, 2026, the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day withdrawal period would have expired, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or extension enacted by Congress. Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing United States Armed Forces to continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner calculated not to terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and bring about their prompt removal but, rather, to continue prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives not authorized by Congress, and has therefore directed the Department of Defense in violation of section 1544(b) of title 50, United States Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means: One, directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after the expiration of the 60-day period established under section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an extension enacted by Congress. Two, continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in pursuit of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable additional 30-day period, notwithstanding that such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable military necessity, respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces in the course of bringing about their prompt removal, as certified as necessary by the President of the United States, a certification never transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. Trump pursuant to section 1544(b) of title 50 United States Code. Three, failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the unauthorized use of United States Armed Forces and promptly withdraw such forces from hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Four, directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress, and nullifying the express command that the unauthorized use of United States Armed Forces shall be terminated. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that, in practice, displaced the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress by permitting the executive branch to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, whether statutory deadlines governing unauthorized hostilities must be obeyed, and whether a war may continue after the expiration of every period permitted by law. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article IV: ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Secretary of Defense, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that: Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Hormozgan Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that affected the systemic deterioration and removal of Department of Defense infrastructure that Congress has mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and nonmilitary objects during military operations. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a warmaking culture at the Department of Defense which he boasts as being dismissive of, ``stupid rules of engagement,'' with preference for ``maximum lethality, not tepid legality.'' Such combination chilled and rendered ineffective components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, and responding to civilian harm. By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objects, Secretary Hegseth thereby effected the murder of civilians and abused the trust of men and women under his command by requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeted and legal-review system that he had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and its Armed Forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means: One, Secretary Hegseth willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the requirements of section 184 of title 10 United States Code by systematically dismantling civilian-protection infrastructure in that: A, Secretary Hegseth submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on May 29, 2025, requesting a repeal of section 184 of title 10 the United States Code, the statutory requirement for civilian-protection systems at the Department of Defense, even as Congress had fully funded such systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026, and after Congress did not enact the requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities had been halted. B, Secretary Hegseth immediately stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, despite it being congressionally mandated by section 2082 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117-263, and section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 115-232. C, Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's casualty tracking database--the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports--so that should civilians be harmed as a result of the United States military action, there would be no functioning system within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such harm. D, Secretary Hegseth willfully refused to ensure that DOD components received adequate resources to satisfy the civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned--sorry--requirements, including by removing more than 90 percent of civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to combatant commands. E, Secretary Hegseth failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed conflict, thereby rendering every such component of the Department of Defense's civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally ineffective by the time the United States military combat operations against Iran began in early 2026. Two, Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, the senior- most judge advocate generals of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent legal oversight of combat operations and legal advice to commanders on the law of armed conflict. Three, Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense Strategy with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from prior defense policy that had recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm mitigation as a strategic priority. Four, Hegseth, from the outset of his tenure instigated a departmental culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of rules of engagement as ``stupid,'' ``politically correct,'' and ``overbearing'' in that: A, on September 30, 2025, while addressing the largest assembled gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, Secretary Hegseth boasted that we, the United States military, ``don't fight with stupid rules of engagement.'' B, upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense, the Department of War on September 5, 2025, he poetically proclaimed: ``Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct.'' C, during his confirmation hearing on January 14, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had ``thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way.'' Five, Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the traditional Pentagon press corps and imposing credentialing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm and on matters affecting the welfare and safety of United States servicemembers by journalists most familiar with the Department of Defense. These actions were not isolated, administrative, or rhetorical choices. Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, and civilian protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets as circumstances change, and prevent or mitigate civilian harm. The foreseeable consequences of Secretary Hegseth's scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of Defense targeting process. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows: One, on the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9:45 a.m. local time, the United States, in partnership with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury commencing the 2026 Iran war. Within the first hour of the U.S.-Israeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from the United States Navy warships impacted the elementary school between 10:34 and 10:45 a.m. local time. Two, because the war was commenced midmorning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian workweek, students were in attendance at the school. Despite an attempted evacuation at the school, at the time of the first cruise missile's impact, between 170 and 267 students were present in the facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of 7 and 12 years. Three, whereas it is unclear how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact, which caused partial destruction of the structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that the students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility waiting for rescuers, when a second and third missile, in rapid succession, impacted the building. Four, reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed, with some reports suggesting that civilian death tolls surpassed 170. Those killed include at least 120 schoolchildren, 26 teachers, and 7 parents attempting to evacuate their children, a schoolbus driver, a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic and the 6-month old unborn child of one of the teachers also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded. Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, which Secretary Hegseth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely on whether civilians were deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of distinction, target verification, and feasible precaution require military decisionmakers to determine, in good faith, that an object is a lawful military objective on the basis of information reasonably available at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and review required by those obligations may render an attack unlawful, a failure directly caused by Secretary Hegseth's dismantling of key infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. With respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures manifested in systemic noncompliance with Department of Defense targeting doctrine and legal guidance. The strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School was not an isolated targeting failure divorced from the conduct of the Secretary of Defense, nor can Secretary Hegseth's conduct be dismissed as a single targeting error or isolated failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegseth sought to repeal congressionally mandated civilian-protection requirements, dismantled the Department's civilian-harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior-most judge advocates general responsible for independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the National Defense Strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened nearly every institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military and then presided over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly children. Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of judgment but an extraordinary abuse of powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for the civilians his Department was obligated to protect and the servicemembers he was entrusted to lead. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and, therefore, foreseeably effected the death and injury of over 200 civilians, to the manifest injury of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article V, Extrajudicial Killings: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--especially with regard to the commission of war--has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that: Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal review within the Department of Defense; constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization; and displaced longstanding precedent and codified maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such place the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also oversaw orders denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were hors de combat, and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, thereby endangering members of our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American servicemembers to the same treatment. By subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets, Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world, and contrary to the United States law and customary international law. This conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its Armed Forces, damaged the diplomatic standing of the United States, and injured the interests of the Nation. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means: One, Secretary Hegseth authorized strikes, beginning on September 2, 2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, as provided in chapter 33, title 50, United States Code. Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international waters, comprising at least 63 separate attacks--44 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 17 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified locations--which struck 67 vessels and killed at least 221 individuals. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework established by sections 70503 and 70504 of title 46, United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as Federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States district court and, instead, treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting. Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory restrictions in sections 274 and 275 of title 10, United States Code, governing direct participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, including Federal narcotics enforcement, by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking absent any congressional enacted authorization for the use of military force or other statutory authorization for such direct military action. Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime enforcement framework established by sections 102 and 522 of title 14, United States Code, as well as section 279 of title 10, United States Code, under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest, and he did so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law enforcement processes. Three, Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an execute order directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organizations as follows: A, Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that: Used designated terrorist organizations as a targeting category, notwithstanding that term is not a congressionally created designation conferring authority to use military force; Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or affiliate of a designated terrorist organization, a threshold lower than the near-certainty standard established for drone strikes on suspected al-Qaida militants during the congressionally authorized global war on terror; and Did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with a designated terrorist organization. Four, Secretary Hegseth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter to and the failure to provide timely rescue for, shipwrecked survivors of initial strikes, including, on September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, the United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel. Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a second strike was ordered, killing both survivors. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American servicemembers to the same treatment. On December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels, approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos, Guatemala, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and leaving eight others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been underway for approximately 4 months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors had died at sea. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American servicemembers to the same treatment. Five, Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including: Secretary Hegseth removed the senior-most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by judge advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat operations and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025 he did not want military lawyers to serve as ``roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.'' Secretary Hegseth employed an interagency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their execution, falsely asserting that the United States is engaged in a noninternational armed conflict with 24 Latin American Designated Terrorist Organizations, thereby attempting to displace the governing law enforcement framework, as established in paragraph 2, and substitute an armed conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action, notwithstanding that, pursuant to Little v. Barreme, 1804, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 2014, an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise unauthorized by statutes. The strikes do not constitute hostilities within the meaning of chapter 33 of title 50, United States Code, because they do not place United States personnel in danger, presumptively on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone, or any airstrike against a target lacking air defense capabilities, could also not constitute hostilities; and the designated terrorist organizations are engaged in armed conflict against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence is financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments and the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage, a rationale inconsistent with the execute order targeting guidelines described in paragraph 3, which did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel and instead authorized targeting based on designated terrorist organization membership or affiliation. Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force resulting in the summary execution of at least 221 persons in international waters but also by using his office to compel members of the Armed Forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed on the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered members of the United States Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American servicemembers to such treatment. Secretary Hegseth further endangered United States law enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. By demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed, rather than interdicting and arresting, Secretary Hegseth foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard such vessels will perceive future encounters with United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender. In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign but also made lawful enforcement of United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast Guard and other Federal personnel charged with carrying them out. In all of this, Secretary Peter Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article VI: suppressing free speech: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office, abused the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against a Member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech and attempting to subject a Member of a coordinate branch of government to executive branch punishment for the exercise of his legislative and oversight responsibilities, in that: On November 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired United States Navy captain and National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronaut, who flew 39 combat missions during the first Gulf War, and who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity as a Senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed Forces concerning the unlawful strike campaign against vessels suspected of narcotics trafficking in international waters, stating: ``Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.'' Despite such a statement being consistent with decisions in United States v. Kennan, 1969, and United States v. Calley, 1973, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to retaliate against and intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. Secretary Hegseth did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a sitting United States Senator who cannot fulfill his role in representative government if he fears executive branch reprisals for expressing his views. As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd, 1966, representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. Members of Congress, moreover, enjoy Speech or Debate immunity under Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and Senator Kelly, as a retired servicemember, is entitled to the full breadth of First Amendment protection. Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegseth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress' constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, grossly expand Article II power at the expense of both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and establish a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States servicemembers and inflict irreparable harm upon their First Amendment freedoms. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means: On November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, through a social media post on X, threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled to Active Duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures for his statement. On November 25, 2025, Secretary Hegseth directed the Secretary of the Navy to review Senator Kelly. On January 5, 2026, Secretary Hegseth issued a Secretarial Letter of Censure against Senator Kelly for: saying, you can refuse illegal orders; saying he would ``always defend the Constitution''; questioning the legality of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees; criticizing military leadership, Hegseth, for surrounding themselves, himself, with ``yes men''; and accusing Secretary Hegseth of war crimes. In the letter of censure, Secretary Hegseth also threatened Senator Kelly with criminal prosecution or further administrative action, including the reduction of Senator Kelly's retired military grade should the Senator continue to question the legality of military operations or criticize Secretary Hegseth. In response to a January 12, 2026, complaint filed by Senator Mark Kelly against Secretary Hegseth for retaliating against and intimidating the Senator for his First Amendment-protected speech, Secretary Hegseth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's motion for preliminary injunction, egregiously asserting that: A, Senator Kelly, as retired naval officer, has diminished First Amendment protections; B, Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military affairs, and his being a retired naval officer, constitute nonjusticiable military personnel decisions; C, Secretary Hegseth's opinions supersede the court's jurisdiction on determining whether the government could censure, threaten, and financially punish Senator Kelly because of his speech; and D, Senator Kelly is required to exhaust military administrative remedies before seeking relief in an Article III court, thereby seeking to place the adjudication of Senator Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by the executive branch. Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of Secretary of Defense for politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly for the Senator's criticism of conduct implicating potential war crimes, Secretary Hegseth grossly violated, or sought to violate, the separation of powers by attempting to subordinate both the legislative and judicial branches, in matters concerning constitutional rights, to the authority of the Department of Defense. In the same effort, Secretary Hegseth sought, without precedent, to extend to retired servicemembers the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to Active-Duty servicemembers under Parker v. Levy, 1974, including retired servicemembers serving in Congress and exercising constitutional oversight over the military. He further asserted, in substance, that the military, rather than Article III courts, possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own actions conform to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, at minimum with respect to the speech of retired servicemembers, such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, which holds that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, not the military. The result of such effort, had Secretary Hegseth been successful, would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities of nearly 20 percent of the current Congress, and whatever proportion of future Congresses may consist of retired servicemembers, as well as the speech of millions of other retired servicemembers, to the will and discretion of the Department of Defense, without any immediate avenue of recourse outside the department to vindicate their constitutional rights. Such a result would constitute one of the most extraordinary expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United States. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense by retaliating against, and attempting to intimidate, a sitting United States Senator through threats of punishment for speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his constitutional role in overseeing the executive branch. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to chill a core function of the legislative branch, encroach upon the constitutional role of the judicial branch by seeking to insulate such retaliation from meaningful judicial review, and, through the precedent he sought to establish, place the First Amendment rights of millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the separation of powers if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties, the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to his protection. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article VII: kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the Office of Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, in that: Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense to carry out an unprecedented military operation--code-named Absolute Resolve--to capture and kidnap President Nicolas Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela, an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela's oil reserves. In doing so, he gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the illegal taking of national oil. To wit, immediately following such attack, Secretary Hegseth appeared alongside President Donald J. Trump, during which the President announced, in reference to Venezuela, we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transaction. So we don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and we have the same situation that we had. We are going to run it essentially, and ``we are going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in . . . and start making money . . . and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so.'' Thus, revealing the motives behind the forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended far beyond the narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated. On January 3, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and around Caracas, Venezuela, employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on the ground and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, and electronic warfare aircraft, supported by substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, which together, penetrated Venezuelan territory, suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracas area, inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, killed at least 83 people, including several civilians, and caused 7 American casualties. In doing so: Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders effecting the removal of the President of a sovereign nation, placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted substantial casualties, and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes an act of war. Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution by: Ordering United States Armed Forces to commit acts of war against Venezuela without a declaration of war by Congress against such nation; and Making rules concerning captures on land, a power specifically vested in Congress, where Congress had made no rules authorizing or otherwise applicable to such operation; and Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code, by entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities against a sovereign nation, without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, employing military force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth usurped Congress' congressional authority over war and transformed the Department of Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond the apprehension of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of narcotics law enforcement, including regime change and the acquisition of foreign oil. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers to executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the well-being of United States military personnel if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article VIII: unlawful war in Yemen: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--especially with regard to the commission of war--has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that: Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner leading to the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians, as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi fighters, through the initiation and direction of Operation Rough Rider. The operation comprised more than 1,100 strikes against targets in Yemen over approximately 52 days. In less than 8 weeks, there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen as the United States military actions had caused in that country during the preceding 23 years. Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed those hostilities in the absence of any of the predicates required in section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities. Moreover, Secretary Hegseth acknowledged the absence of any imminent threat to the United States, further undermining any assertion Article II authority to initiate such hostilities without congressional authorization. Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider without congressional authority pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, or statutory authorization, in that: Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code, by entering and sustaining United States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in Yemen between March 15 and May 6, 2025, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1543(a) of title 50, United States Code, by continuing to direct United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite the President of the United States having failed to notify Congress of such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement, as required by section 4(a), and notwithstanding that the President did not transmit such a report to Congress until March 28, 2025, thereby further undermining any possible Article II authority for the continued hostilities, especially during such 13-day period. Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Secretary Hegseth directed Operation Rough Rider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military action without prior congressional authorization, as evidenced by a leaked Signal chat involving Secretary Hegseth, concerning the potential execution of Operation Rough Rider, in which: Several senior United States Government officials, including Secretary Hegseth, each possessing unfettered access to military and intelligence information, advised there was no immediate need to enter the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen, thereby asserting there was no imminent threat to the United States, its possessions or territories, or its Armed Forces, including: Vice President JD Vance stating: ``There is a strong argument for delaying a month''; Then-Acting Chief of Staff to the National Security Advisor Joe Kent stating: ``There is nothing time sensitive driving this timeline. We will have the exact same options in a month''; Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe stating: ``A delay would not negatively impact us and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership''; Addressing the timing of Operation Rough Rider, Secretary Hegseth himself stated: ``We can easily pause''; and Addressing the Vice President's concerns regarding Operation Rough Rider's immediate commencement, Secretary Hegseth stated: ``VP, I understand your concerns . . . two immediate risks on waiting: One, this leaks and we look indecisive; two, Israel takes action first--or Gaza ceasefire falls apart''--and we don't get to start this war on our terms; I am sorry--``and we don't get to start this on our own terms. . . . This is not about the Houthis'' reestablish--``reestablishing deterrence which Biden cratered.'' Thus, Secretary Hegseth knew there was no imminent threat to the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, as, had such a threat existed, there would have been no basis for him to state that: ``We can easily pause.'' Moreover, the only immediate risks identified by Secretary Hegseth concerned media optics and Israeli affairs rather than the direct affairs of the United States of America, the Nation to which his oath is sworn. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers entrusted to him as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional limits on the use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to his own policy objectives, notwithstanding his knowledge that no imminent threat to the United States existed, and demonstrated a profound disregard for civilian life, the rule of law, the constitutional authority of Congress, and his duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the United States Armed Forces. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the President signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the government continues to withhold over 3 million files. That is why we have introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, to bring the fight to the State courts, accountability to the Department of Justice, and closure for survivors. We want perpetrators of these crimes to be investigated and prosecuted, men like: Jes Staley; Leon Black; Les Wexner; David Copperfield; Lapo Elkann; Tom Pritzker; Glenn Dubin; Frederic Fekkai; Eduardo Teodorani; Jean-Luc Brunel, conveniently dead by suicide in prison; Daniel Siad, recently discovered dead in Paris; Ramsey Elkholy; and Prince Andrew, who committed sex crimes in the United States, too; and women like Leslie Groff, not a victim, who conspired with Epstein to traffic other women. Perhaps hearing these names will shame the Department of Justice into delivering justice.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, my amendment is simple. It strikes $3.3 billion of foreign aid to the country of Israel from the State Department funding bill. We have $39.4 trillion of debt. We have needs at home, which include our infrastructure, our roads and bridges. We have a shortfall in this fund. We have our locks and dams, and we are perpetually trying to figure out new funding mechanisms to come up with. We have homeless veterans. We are sending more money to Israel in this bill than we spend on homeless veterans in this country. Just to put it in perspective, there are 3,000 counties in this country, and if we divide that into $3 billion, that is $1 million from every county. This is not an insignificant amount of money that is going overseas. I think we should stop it. We should put them on a diet. They are the biggest welfare recipient of the United States and have been for many years. Madam Chair, $310 billion has been received by Israel from the taxpayers of the United States. That is in inflation-adjusted dollars since we have been giving them money. That is why I think this amendment is important. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I heard a common refrain in my colleague's arguments there that, oh, don't worry, all this money is going to the military industrial complex. I have a problem with that. It is not a sustainable economy--buying weapons and letting people use them overseas on other people, oftentimes innocent civilians. I am not compelled by the argument that our job is to be here and enrich the military-industrial complex, now called the defense industrial base. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), my friend and colleague.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Chair, Israel has the strongest economy in the Middle East. Their debt per GDP is in much better shape than ours. They don't need our money. In fact, they have claimed recently they want to get off of the welfare. I am concerned that the other funding mechanisms they are talking about, or comingling, our technology and supply chains, we will have even less transparency than what is going on here today, so I am opposed to that as well. I am opposed to all foreign aid. I didn't pick on Israel here. I offered an amendment to defund Egypt and also to defunding aid to Jordan, which we will talk about in a little bit. I am particularly concerned this year about the foreign aid to Israel. There have been 70,000 casualties in Gaza, and I don't think we should be a part of that. American taxpayers should not be conscripted into funding the military adventures of Israel. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment sincerely for the American people because the price of housing, the price of fuel, the price of everything is going up because our government, frankly, is spending too much money. We are borrowing money. We are printing money, and why are we doing this? Are we doing this to support our own infrastructure or our own veterans? No. A lot of this money goes overseas, and one of the recipients is the country of Jordan. I think we should end foreign aid to Jordan. As our debt approaches $40 trillion, it is more and more urgent. I have noticed that the money that we sent to Jordan has tripled since 2008. It started out at about $600 million, and now it is $2.1 billion. This is too much. We shouldn't be doing it. Jordan is a monarchy. They do not deserve the support of our democratic Republic of this country. I think we should end the support to their country from our taxpayers. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment. I will just say it again. The monarchy of Jordan doesn't deserve the taxpayers' money from the United States. In 2021, King Abdullah II secretly purchased over $106 million in luxury properties in Malibu, London, and D.C. through 36 offshore shell companies while 16 percent of the Jordanian population lives in poverty. It has been said that foreign aid can be described as taking money from poor people in the United States and giving it to rich people in other countries, and that is what is happening in this instance. How much of this money is going to go toward more luxury properties for the King of Jordan? I would like to know that. There needs to be more transparency in this money and, frankly, it needs to end completely. We don't have the money. We are in debt. It is contributing to the high cost of living here in the United States. We would be better off spending this money taking care of our own veterans. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of the privileges of the House and offer a resolution previously noticed.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in a representative democracy, as we have here, a Republic, if you will, transparency is essential to the operation of government, particularly transparency in the official behavior of the Members of this body, as well as the officers and employees of this body. In 1995, due to the Congressional Accountability Act--which, by the way, was a good bill. We always say that Congress should be subject to the same laws as the rest of the country. Well, that is what the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act was about, saying that you can't discriminate or harass your employees just because you are a Member of Congress or an office of the House of Representatives. In that sense, it was good, but it also set up a fund from which payments could be made to settle claims. Presumably, this is in the best interests of the victims of those claims. This program went on for many years with a lot of opaqueness, and there wasn't much clarity in terms of what kind of claims were being paid out. Were they being paid out to settle claims against staff? Were they being paid out to settle claims against Members? Occasionally, there would be reports from the offices that were responsible for administrating the law, but there just wasn't enough information in there. That is part of what my privileged resolution here today is about: getting more transparency into what happened in the first 20 years of this program. In 2018, Congress sought to revise the transparency of this program and also to impose more accountability. I have a concern that the 2018 bill may not have been carefully drafted and may have left some loopholes that are now open. Even though we get an annual report now that reports which offices in the House have paid out settlements and whether those settlements impose a requirement on the Member in that office to pay back that taxpayer money, what I have discovered is that there have been no reports that have reported that any Member of Congress has settled a claim against a staffer for which the Member of Congress is responsible for paying back that claim. When I dig into the results, and also the language of the 2018 amendment to the Congressional Accountability Act, I see that ``covered payments'' refer to chapter A of title 2, but when you look at the Code: 2 U.S.C. 1415, harassment is qualified to two other sections of code, referring to race, gender, age, and discrimination against veterans, for instance. It is unclear to me if it covers physical or sexual harassment or other forms of sexual misconduct that may be settled through ethics investigations and then through the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. I believe it is necessary to have this report that my resolution requests. I believe it is important to the House of Representatives to have transparency so that people know there wasn't a mistake in the 2018 law--or maybe there was an intentional omission in the 2018 law where several claims could escape the new requirement in 2018 that Congressmen pay back certain settlements and that these certain settlements be reported. It shouldn't require a long debate and a lot of explanation for a resolution that is only two pages. I would urge my colleagues to vote for this in the interest of transparency and openness. We need to know what has been going on here in the House of Representatives in order to convince and assure the people that we are conducting the people's business with the utmost integrity and treating the officers and employees of this institution with the respect that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records relating to monetary settlements involving acts of sexual harassment. Whereas transparency is essential for accountability in government; Whereas sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances by Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioners, in violation of clause 9 and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House affect the safety, dignity, and integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it resolved that with respect to reviews, investigations, or matters which the Committee on Ethics or the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights have reviewed, conducted, or facilitated, the Committee on Ethics and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights shall, not later than 60 days after the adoption of this resolution, make publicly available a single consolidated list that sets forth separately for each Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner the name of each Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who was the subject of any review or investigation involving a violation of clause 9 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment, or clause 18 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, or any case involving sexual harassment or sexual abuse if it resulted in a payment of taxpayer funds; and adjacent to each such name, the total amount of taxpayer funds included in all settlements, payments, reimbursements, awards, or other financial considerations paid in connection with such matters; The aggregate total amount of taxpayer funds included in all settlements, payments, reimbursements, awards, or other financial considerations paid in connection with such reviews, investigations, or matters involving Members, Delegates, or Resident Commissioners that did not, in any portion of the settlement, involve sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct; The aggregate total amount of taxpayer funds included in all settlements, payments, reimbursements, awards, or other financial considerations paid in connection with such reviews, investigations, or matters involving, in part or in full, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct by employees of the House of Representatives; and The aggregate total amount of taxpayer funds included in all settlements, payments, reimbursements, awards, or other financial considerations paid in connection with such reviews, investigations, or matters involving conduct by employees of the House of Representatives that did not in any portion of the settlement involve sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct. That for the purposes of this resolution, any such settlement, payment, reimbursement, award, or other financial consideration shall be treated as involving sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct if sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct was any component of the matter, regardless of whether the matter also involved, was classified as, or was resolved under another claim, violation, or category.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this clean reauthorization of an unconstitutional program that is being used to spy on Americans without warrants. This would be the third temporary, clean extension of this unconstitutional program, and I find myself on the unfortunate opposition to the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan). I want to read some of his quotes from last year. This is an article in The Washington Post that he so eloquently wrote: ``One year from now, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will have a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and better protect Americans from warrantless government surveillance. This will be one of the most important debates we will have this Congress, and it is vital that we begin working now to protect Americans' constitutional rights.'' He goes on to say: ``Our fidelity must always be to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is one of the foundations of American civil liberties. It is part of what makes our country great and makes us the envy of the world. We must continue to protect and enhance it. Passing a warrant requirement for section 702 will do just that.'' He goes on to tweet later or earlier than that: ``The same people who spied on President Trump's campaign are now fighting against a warrant requirement in the new FISA bill.'' ``Makes you wonder.'' I find myself disagreeing with the chairman in this debate but agreeing vehemently with him last year and the year before when he pointed out that this program is unconstitutional and there is only one way to fix it: require warrants, judicial warrants. We saw the President's administration tweet this week that we shouldn't trust these liberal judges in Washington, DC, to hamstring the Secretary of Defense. Well, that is not what we are talking about. Number one, we are not talking about a constraint on the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of War. We are talking about a constraint on the FBI to spy on Americans. We are not talking about liberal judges since 8 of the 11 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges were appointed by Republicans. By the way, most of them aren't even in DC.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor, maybe one of the biggest honors of my lifetime, to stand here on the floor and do something that is 59 years overdue, to recognize the survivors and those who gave their lives on the USS Liberty 59 years ago today, when they were viciously attacked by IDF jets and also after that by torpedo boats. I am going to tell you a little bit of their story. By the way, there are at least a dozen of them here today with us. I just met with them in my office, and they related this story to me. It was a clear day. The USS Liberty was one of the most technologically sophisticated ships in the Navy, but it was virtually unarmed. It was sent to observe the Six-Day War going on in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbors. It arrived on June 7, and the weather was clear. Planes came out to meet them, to investigate. Then on the next day, on June 8, when they started the day, the visibility was unlimited and the American flag was flying proudly on the USS Liberty. More planes came from Israel to surveil the ship. They thought they were in good shape, but what happened next surprised them all. French Mirage jets showed up, and for 25 minutes, strafed and attacked the USS Liberty. They shot rockets. They shot 30-millimeter cannons into the hull and into the ship. They even dropped napalm on the bridge of the ship. This was an effort to kill everybody on board. There was no intention of taking prisoners. After the 25 grueling minutes of attack on this virtually unarmed ship, when they thought things were over and they could recover, the torpedo boats showed up, three torpedo boats. They launched four torpedoes. One of them hit the hull of the USS Liberty and killed 25 people instantly. It blew a 40-by-40-foot hole in the side of this ship. They were intent on sinking it. They were intent on not having a single survivor. According to eyewitness accounts, the Israelis machine-gunned the lifeboats that they put down. They machine-gunned the firefighters who were on the deck. They were bringing the wounded and the dead to the mess hall to triage them. They had one doctor who was trying to help them all, put a few stitches in. It was harrowing. It was amazing that if not for that crew, that boat would have sunk that day. But it still wasn't over. Helicopters showed up, combat helicopters. The USS Liberty, even though their signals were being jammed by the Israelis, got a signal out. There were ships that tried to respond. The USS Saratoga and the USS America sent planes. Both of them sent planes to help the USS Liberty. And something happened that has never happened before to a ship under attack: The planes were recalled. This has never happened before. They sat there for 17 hours with 34 dead and 174 wounded out of 294 crewmembers. That is over a 70 percent casualty rate, which is unheard of. The Israelis were intent on leaving no survivors. What about our own military? Why did they not send anybody for 17 hours to help these men? So what really happened? The official reports say that it was a case of mistaken identity. But if you listen to Dean Rusk, former Secretary of State; Richard Helms, CIA Director; Bobby Ray Inman, head of the NSA; Captain Ward Boston, who was the chief council of the court of inquiry; and if you listen to Admiral Moore, who served in Pearl Harbor, Midway, commanded both the Atlantic and Pacific fleet, and was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, none of these distinguished men think this was an accident. They think it was intentional murder by the country of Israel, either as a false flag operation or because they simply didn't want anybody observing what they were doing that day. Well, I have got a call to action for everybody here. Honor these individuals. Quit ignoring that they exist. Go to their website, ussliberty.org. Support them while they are still alive. They need closure. Let's give them closure. Let's have an investigation. Let's pass a resolution honoring them. It is long overdue. Then they can have their justice. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the declaration of Ward Boston declaring that the only official court of inquiry was invalid. affidavit of captain ward boston, usn. jag (ret.), senior counsel to the u.s. navy court of inquiry For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of the USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth. In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocates General Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on the USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th. The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy's official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that we both has estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to: ``inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with the armed attack: damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.'' Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors. The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli Forces responsible for the attack as ``murderous bastards.'' It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors who had ordered the attack, were aware that the ship was American. I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded--a war crime. Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence, and the court did not consider any of the more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to testify in person. I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ``mistaken identity.'' In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol's book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack. It is Cristol's insidiuous attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out. I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of ``mistaken identity'' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court's findings. Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to ``put the lid'' on everything having to do with the attack on the USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and I did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised. Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship. In 1990, I received a telephone call from Jay Cristol, who wanted to interview me concerning the functioning of the Court of Inquiry. I told him that I would not speak to him on that subject and prepared to hang up the telephone. Cristol then began asking me about my personal background and other, non-Court of Inquiry related matters. I endeavored to answer these questions and politely extricate myself from the conversation. Cristol continued to return to the subject of the Court of Inquiry, which I refused to discuss with him. Finally, I suggested that he contact Admiral Kidd and ask him about the Court of Inquiry. Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that ``Cristol must be an Israeli agent.'' I don't know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol's highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty. At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol's claims of a ``close friendship'' with Admiral Kidd to be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty. Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These ``notes'' were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these ``notes'' were a product of mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that is disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol, as we had nothing in common and I did not trust him. Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years. Dated: January 8, 2004, Coronado, California. Signed Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC USN (Ret.), Senior Counsel to the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2267) to require the Attorney General to submit to the Congress a report that includes the demographic data of persons determined to be ineligible to purchase a firearm based on a background check performed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as amended.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2267.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are bringing to the floor the NICS Data Reporting Act. It was inspired in the Judiciary Committee by a conversation that I had with the late Sheila Jackson Lee. I became aware of a problem with the NICS background check system because John Lott, who is an author of many books, an economist, and a statistician, worked at the Department of Justice and has been privy to some of this data and has discovered that the NICS background check system doesn't work like we think it does, or may actually, in fact, have a racial prejudice built into it. That is a problem because the right to keep and bear arms, like all fundamental rights protected in the Constitution and given to us by God, should not be based on race, sex, or religion. The NICS system--that stands for National Instant Criminal Background Check System--is a program that was instituted many years ago that you have to go through when you want to purchase a firearm. You fill out a Form 4473 at the gun store, and you record some affirmations on there that you are not a felon, that you don't use drugs, and you also put on there some demographic data. The DOJ collects this data, but they have never let us see it. I think we could learn some things and improve their system if we could see this data. As soon as you fill out the form, they send it in to the central database, and they check to see if you are a prohibited person. In other words, have you been convicted of a crime for which you could serve a year or more, or have you been mentally adjudicated as defective according to this system. What happens when it does this check is the computers will look for phonetically similar names, and if you share a name, unfortunately, with somebody who is a criminal, even if you are not a convicted criminal yourself, you could be denied the purchase of a firearm. In fact, there have been 2 million denials since this system was put into place in the 1980s. In any given year, we have seen over 100,000 denials, but we know these are mostly false denials because there have only been 12 Federal convictions in a year where there were 100,000 denials. The problem is, you can appeal this, and if it is your first appeal, you don't get it overridden, you have to employ lawyers. When you have to spend a lot of money to exercise a constitutional right, you are effectively being deprived of that right. Here is what we believe. If you looked at the data, what you will find is that Black Americans are three times more likely to get a false denial in the NICS background check system and that Hispanic Americans are twice as likely to get a false denial from the NICS background check system as a White American might be. Why is this? Because they share similar names, surnames and first names, within racial and ethnic groups. If you are in one of these groups and share one of these names with somebody who has been convicted, you can be deprived of the ability to purchase a gun. This is a problem. We want to see the data, and that is the purpose of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about the purpose of the bill. It is not to collect more information on prospective gun buyers. It is to know the information we have, what has been collected, what can we infer from those things. For instance, on the form, we already collect race and ethnicity. The purpose of this bill is not to tell us individual details about the people who purchase the guns. We want to know these numbers in the aggregate so that nobody's particular traits or names will be disclosed as gun owners. We just need to know what it looks like statistically. There has been a question from some of my conservative colleagues as to why the bill asks for both gender and sex. The reason for that is, before 2016, the form 4473 used to ask what your gender was. After 2016, it asks what your sex is. The language of the law doesn't suggest that those two things are different things. It just acknowledges that the data that has been collected over the years has been collected under two different terms, and we want to know all the data. Mr. Speaker, banks also do background checks on prospective tellers and employees of the banks. Imagine if a bank had an error in their system that caused Black tellers or Hispanic tellers to fail the background check more than White tellers or other bank employees. The bank would be sued out of existence. Yet, we have a government system that we believe probably does this, so that is why we need to know the data. My goal with this is that we improve the system and that we make it not sloppy. What will the improvement yield? It will take out the racial bias in the system that exists right now. It will also mean that all races, whether you are White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian, and whether you are male or female, there will be no bias because we will check for your actual name and your actual birthday and clean this system up. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.