Brian Mast

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended with: ``This is serious.'' This is serious. It is more serious than when my colleagues can't even acknowledge a hint of an emergency, a hint of imminence related to the threat of Iran--there is nothing to see there--even though last Congress so many of them voted, including Ranking Member Meeks, to say use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why would they say ``all means necessary''? I guess it is because a year ago they believed it to be that imminent, that important. It was said by the ranking member, their bill doesn't prevent the U.S. from defending ourselves. It literally does. Let me read the text for you: `` . . . directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war . . . `' That means the President cannot go out there and defend the United States of America. It is saying the President has no Article II authority to go out there and defend the United States of America. That is literally what they are saying. He said our hostilities must stop, but I can promise you, the hostilities of Iran will not stop, have never stopped until the United States of America makes this decision to stop them. Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump for having the courage, the strength, and the resolve to stop the imminent threat of Iran from attacking the United States of America as they have week after week, year after year for the last 47 years. It is the very definition of imminent. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 38 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion, except for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. MAST. 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 the resolution under consideration.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are about to have a debate apparently for about an hour. We are going to have that debate for one reason and one reason alone. Democrats in the House and in the Senate as well, refuse to recognize that there is a crisis because of fentanyl entering the United States of America. Whether on our northern border, on our southern border, through the Caribbean, or other places, they refuse to recognize that threat anywhere. Specific to the debate today, they would like to end an executive order relating to the crisis of fentanyl coming across our northern border. Democrats don't recognize that there is a crisis and that it is killing thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, each and every year. They are trying to literally end that executive order that identifies the national emergency, an emergency that is literally agreed upon by our northern neighbor, Canada. Even Canada acknowledges that they have this as a national emergency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to correct from that diatribe I just heard. I am going to start to go through some of that. Number one, who will pay the price? That was a question begged by my colleague. Who will pay the price? It is a very sad thing to have been asked this by my colleague. It is important to remember what this resolution is. This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl. I would say to the gentleman over here that 5,000 people a year die in his State alone from fentanyl. If he wants to beg the question of who is going to pay the price for him trying to end an emergency that actually for the first time has Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them, who is going to pay the price? It is going to be 5,000 more of his State's residents. That is who is going to pay the price. I think the gentleman next to me mentioned as well, when he goes home, this is what he sees when he goes home. When he goes home each and every year, because they don't want to address fentanyl, they are going to see 5,000 less faces because they don't want to deal with fentanyl. He said it himself. He sees no emergency. The ``so-called emergency'' were the exact words used, the so-called emergency. There is no emergency that exists, to quote my colleague. If 5,000 people were dying in my State every single year from one thing and one thing alone, I think that is an emergency. His people will pay the price. Let's be clear again about what this resolution is and what it is not. It is not a debate about tariffs. We can talk about those, but that is not really what it is. This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis. Again, they just ignored it. They just literally said it doesn't exist. I will read again directly from the bill: `` . . . the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 1, 2025, in Executive Order 14193 . . . is hereby terminated.'' That is their language. They are terminating the executive order, and it is an EO on the fentanyl crisis at the northern border. It matters to talk about that it is the northern border. Why? That is because my Democratic colleagues don't believe that there is a crisis there, but my Democratic colleagues don't believe there is a fentanyl crisis under any circumstance. Any fentanyl that flows into the country, they don't see any of it as a national emergency. We have yet to find a place where Democrats say that drugs are a national emergency. They made it clear that there is not one single circumstance where they see the deaths of millions of Americans due to fentanyl as a crisis. They don't see that anywhere. Mr. Speaker, let's look again at my colleague's own State. This is a report. Last report, almost 5,000 deaths, or just under that. Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the largest fentanyl lab found in Canada. Where was that found in Canada that was recently shut down because of the pressure that President Trump is putting on Canada? It was 30 miles from the New York border. They didn't close it down 2 years ago or 3 years ago. Why not? It was because Canada didn't have the pressure put on them to do so. That is not a coincidence. Mr. Speaker, again, do you know who is going to pay the price for taking the pressure off of Canada? It is going to be the constituents of my colleague, where 5,000 people a year die from fentanyl overdose. If I were him, I would think that is a pretty big emergency. Mr. Speaker, I lost 2,500 brothers and sisters in Afghanistan over the course of 20 years. Our country took that extremely seriously for every single one of them. Mr. Meeks' State is losing double that from fentanyl alone every single year, and he says that he sees no emergency. That is sad for the people of New York. The administration is doing everything that they can to defeat fentanyl, while my Democratic colleagues are willing to do everything that they can to have those deaths continue. They don't support striking drug boats. We know that much. They don't support removing cartel leaders. We know that. Apparently, they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges that they have a drug trafficking crisis but weren't doing anything to fix it. I am going to suspect that my colleague over here doesn't know this as well: Last year, Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, himself addressed the fentanyl problem and said that it needed to be eradicated. That is the Prime Minister of Canada, or former Prime Minister. It was so bad that Canada created a fentanyl czar, who admitted that they underestimated--Canada underestimated the toll of the fentanyl crisis and what it had taken, and they literally called it, according to the Canadian fentanyl czar, a national security threat. The northern border, for whom this emergency exists, is acknowledging that there is an emergency, a national security threat, but I guess my colleagues think that they know better. Mr. Speaker, take the Chinese-run fentanyl lab that I mentioned being shut down, or one of them being shut down, of many. There was over 800 pounds of fentanyl confiscated. Why is it being shut down now and not before? It is being shut down now because the administration had the stones to put economic pressure on them, but my colleagues want to take that pressure off because they don't worry about their people dying in their State. It is simple. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you care about the U.S. Government responding to millions of Americans being killed by fentanyl, this is the policy that addresses that. Even our northern partner acknowledges that. The truth is that Canada hasn't wanted to put effort into cracking down on drugs. They didn't want to close the Chinese fentanyl labs. They didn't want to increase their spending on border patrols, but they have to do it because President Trump is putting pressure on them. Tariffs get more attention than strongly worded letters, and millions of Americans' lives are being saved because President Trump has declared this national emergency and is actively forcing our neighbors, like Canada, to act. It is saving lives. My colleague wants to make sure that that no longer happens because he doesn't see an emergency, even though 5,000 people from his State are dying every single year. That is pretty sad. That is where the price is paid. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague, Mr. Issa, I would ask my colleague--I am happy to yield a moment--would you like to say 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency? Crickets. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy. Would you like to respond: 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency.

Mr. MAST. Do you want to answer?

Mr. MAST. I gave you my speculation. It might have been making room for Maduro.

Mr. MAST. We didn't have that talk, but he might be making room for Maduro.

Mr. MAST. I asked you a question. Would you like to say 5,000 deaths are an emergency in New York?

Mr. MAST. Can we engage in a colloquy? Is that something we can do?

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, then, in this colloquy, I would present the opportunity again: Would my colleague like to deny or admit that 5,000 deaths in New York related to fentanyl is an emergency?

Mr. MAST. Much of it did. Would you like to hear some stats? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I guess you need to direct your--

Mr. MAST. You have to direct your remarks to the Speaker.

Mr. MAST. I would point to just Canada, number one. Canada, in the last year, had an additional 8,000 fentanyl-related arrests because they finally started cracking down on it. There was an increase of 80 percent that was seized at the U.S.-Canada border because of the actions taking place, so, yes, there were deaths going on in New York.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am going to end this colloquy and reclaim my time.

Mr. MAST. I note for the record, again, ample opportunities have been given for my colleague, who represents New York, to just say 5,000 fentanyl-related deaths in New York is an emergency. Silence, crickets, no response, because the death of 5,000 of his constituents apparently means nothing to him. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Issa for his remarks, and I believe there will be another Representative from California speaking on the other side. I will be curious if that Representative will acknowledge the thousands of deaths from fentanyl in California being an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague know that just one-- because he said Canada plays almost no role in fentanyl deaths--one 70- pound bust of fentanyl alone was enough to kill every single person in New York City. Again, my colleague is unwilling to acknowledge that this is about fentanyl, because that is literally what the executive order says, and unwilling to acknowledge that 5,000 deaths in his State is an emergency, certainly in 1 year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chair of the Budget Committee.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me we are talking about the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, and somebody is talking about wine. We are talking about the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, and my colleagues are talking about wine. Let's get some perspective here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should educate themselves on what these tariffs are affecting. They are third-party goods coming in from countries like China. I don't think they are growing much coffee in Canada. They might want to look at the map and look at the temperatures and where these items grow. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.