Brian Mast

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. I didn't say ``evil.''

Mr. MAST. I didn't say ``evil.'' Did I say ``evil''? I agree they are evil, but I didn't say that. Let's not twist the words.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield more time because I think he is going to run out. I didn't say ``evil.'' You are still saying things I didn't say. I read what you voted for last week: Iran wants to attack the United States--``wants to attack'' means imminent--and our allies with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon.

Mr. MAST. I will give you a moment of time in a second. He voted to say any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We could go on and on about these things. Are they an imminent threat?

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. MAST. They are certainly not.

Mr. MAST. What I would give you is this, to present, again, imminence of them. I just gave you some examples. We will say just before this began in February, they attacked a U.S.-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that, they attacked--IRGC, I am talking about when I say ``they.'' They attacked another oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that--I am in December now--attacked another one. Just before that, IRGC attacked one in the Marshall Islands. Just before that, IRGC attacked an MSC ship and raided with a helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. I have pages and pages of these. It is the definition of ``imminent.'' As you know, before that, they killed three Americans at Tower 22 in Jordan. It is imminent.

Mr. MAST. They attacked us literally just before our operations began. I gave you one example. To me, being a servicemember, if I see a foxhole and one or two enemies in that foxhole with the barrel of a .50-cal pointed at me, just because they don't have two fingers on the trigger playing with that trigger doesn't mean that it is not an imminent threat. If they are aiming it at me, that is an imminent threat. They are aiming it at us.

Mr. MAST. Thankfully, we have had a cease-fire since, I want to say the date was April 7, April 8. We are not in hostilities. We are out there with almost the exact same number of forces that we continually keep in the region. It brings me to another question I would love to ask you as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, because the bill literally calls for the removal of U.S. forces from the region, other than those that ``may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.'' That is what the bill says you are voting on today--probably, you will vote for it. I would love to know which military assets you would like to remove.

Mr. MAST. We are paused. We are in a cease-fire.

Mr. MAST. That is what a cease-fire is. It is an end to that. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is still an argument from my colleagues over there about imminent threat, imminent threat, whether it is an imminent threat. I will just give them one other important piece of information they might want for the debate that was just so passionately spoken about. Before Epic Fury began, 30 months--the 30 months within, not 30 months just beyond that--30 months within Epic Fury, that time before it, there were 350 attacks against the United States of America. That is not just imminent. That is continuous. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how my colleagues on the other side to not equate continuous with imminence. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think we have probably, I don't know, maybe 100 people up in the gallery behind us. I am going to apologize to the people behind us. They came here to the Capitol of the United States of America to hear debate, but they witnessed my colleagues over here don't really want to debate. I am always willing to give them time if they actually want to have a debate, argue facts, talk about things, but they rarely--as you all witnessed, they don't want to take my time to answer questions. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had a little back and forth with me for a little while. I appreciated it. I asked him very direct questions. Does continuous attacks against the United States of America equal an imminent threat. They just gloss by that as though they have nothing to do with the national security of the United States of America. They didn't want to talk about it. You are owed more than that. This is what debate is. I constantly offer them the time. They don't want to answer the questions. It is because this is all political for them. This is political. That is why they don't want to answer why they voted not too long ago to say use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. They all over there voted for that. None of them can explain today why they don't want to use any and all means necessary, but before, that was the case. It is not convenient. It is not politically convenient for them to do that. My colleagues over here said it is a war of choice. Yes, it is a choice. As Americans, we make a choice. If somebody hits us day after day, week after week, month after month, do we just keep getting hit, or do we hit back? That is a choice. I can tell you, as an American servicemember, an American fighter, if somebody hits me, kills my people, I am going to hit them back. Yes, I hate high energy prices, but not as much as I hate people who kill Americans. I hate them, but not as much as I hate those that kill my people. Iran kills our people consistently, attacks our people consistently, and wants to seek the means to do that with a nuclear weapon. They all agreed on it prior to President Trump doing something about it. They don't want to have a debate about that. No matter how it comes down in the end, they don't want to actually talk about the real things that are going on. They don't want to talk about the troop levels over there that are basically the same thing that they were before this conflict even began. These are things they don't like to discuss. Again, you weren't all here in the audience a week ago when we were debating this before, but as I mentioned earlier, they all voted to say the ways that Iran is a nuclear threat: They want to attack the United States of America. They want to attack us with ballistic missiles, with terrorist proxies. They want to obtain a nuclear weapon and use that against us. They all voted to say that a week ago.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I will keep that in mind. They all voted to say that, that this is the way that Iran is a nuclear--that they are an imminent threat. They won't use the words ``imminent threat,'' though, because to use the words ``imminent threat'' has some specific legal connotation to it. They know it is bad for them. They don't want to do it. It is political, too political. It would be like I have a cough, a fever, cold sweats, but I am unwilling to say that I have the flu. They are not willing to say it. They are not willing to acknowledge what is. People in the audience, people watching, you are owed more than that out of those who are debating national security. I mentioned already that before Operation Epic Fury began, in the 30 months prior to it beginning: 350 attacks in 30 months. They are not willing to say that that is ``imminent.'' Examples include U.S.-flagged tankers, and Iranian forces seize Greek-flagged tanker. There was the tanker Pacific Zircon, off the coast of Oman. Iranian Navy captures Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iranian IRGC seizes Panamanian tanker. IRGC seize Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. The list goes on and on, week in and week out. There was an American tanker, a tanker from another country, putting U.S. sailors on their knees on a U.S. vessel, if everybody remembers that. I am an American. I don't believe in getting hit and walking away and pretending as though it didn't happen. I would like to think that all Americans were the same way, but I know that is not the case. There are very few that serve in the United States military, and probably even less that are capable of it, because not everybody reacts to conflict in the same way or has the same desire to deal with it. My colleagues over here who are voting for this are the kind of Americans that get hit and pretend as though it never happened. If you want America to get hit and pretend as though it never happened, then vote with my colleagues over there. If you want us to keep doing something about it, protecting our servicemembers in the region and our assets in the region, then vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which is pretty simple. It prohibits funds from being used to enforce veterans health directive 1315. Why is that? Why would we want to prohibit funds from doing this? Just to make this clear, it doesn't change Federal law. It doesn't require the VA to prescribe any cannabis treatment or any other treatment like that. It simply says that the Department of Veterans Affairs should not prohibit doctors from discussing or helping veterans navigate legal State-approved cannabis programs if that is something that the veteran is considering. Now, whether anybody likes it or not, whether they smoke it, they roll it, they chew it, or they sniff it, whatever, anything they do with cannabis or don't do with cannabis, these are programs that exist in a lot of States. If former members of the military have doctors that they are seeing inside of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and if there is a treatment option that they want to be considered for, they want to know if it is right for them, if it is not right for them, if it doesn't fit in good with other prescriptions that they have, you name it, Mr. Chair, if they want to discuss it, then they have to be able to discuss it with their doctor. The most important person for them to discuss it with is their doctor. If they are getting their primary care from the VA and they can't have that discussion, then that is a problem. Whether the doctor says it is good or bad, that is up to the doctor to decide, but they have to be able to have that conversation. I tell people often that I was injured in Afghanistan. I lost two legs and a finger there. When I woke up in the hospital, I woke up on antidepressants, antiinflammatories, heavy sleep sedatives, a host of narcotic pain killers from a Dilaudid drip, to oral morphines, to epidurals, you name it, Mr. Chair, and I weaned myself off of those things very quickly. That is not the case for all of my brothers and sisters. A lot of these narcotics that people are on and get placed on, especially after injuries, are serious and very difficult to get off of and leave long- term, lasting effects on them. There has to be an ability, again, for people inside the system to have that conversation with their doctor about whether that is right, that path of what I woke up on, having really no say-so about it, or something else is right for them, because they read something about it, saw something about it, heard something from one of their friends, you name it, Mr. Chair, they have to have that conversation with their doctor. Again, I encourage support for amendment No. 23, prohibit funds from being used to enforce veterans health directive 1315 so that why? So that veterans can speak to their doctor about whether cannabis is or is not a good medical treatment program for them. Just let them have the option to talk. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of April 27, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 75) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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 any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a smile on my face. I am laughing because in the whole 10 minutes that I just listened to my colleague speak, there was not one mention of what this bill actually does or says. It is probably really convenient to not reference anything that this bill says. I will tell you why it is really convenient for my colleague across the aisle. He said: We could never show any evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat. He said it numerous times and said it other days that we were going through the same song and dance. So why does he not want to mention the bill? It is because him voting for this bill that he is going to vote for--he is going to vote ``yes'' on this bill--what does the bill say right in its text? It outlines the imminent threat that Iran is. Thank you to the author of this bill for the bill that you are going to vote for. Let me quote the bill since maybe you didn't read it. ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States.'' That is one of many. ``The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to pose a threat to the United States, its Armed Forces, and allies through its ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist proxy forces, and pursuit of a nuclear weapon.'' There are many more whereas clauses in this. It literally states the imminent threat that they are. So I look forward to you voting ``yes'' on the imminent threat that Iran is, my colleagues over there, and just proving to yourselves and proving to everybody just how wrong you are, how you probably didn't read this bill, and how you have no interest in actually speaking the truth about what it says. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for the purpose of a colloquy to tell us if Iran is an imminent threat.