Brian Mast

Mr. MAST

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

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

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. My colleague over here is the ranking member, the top Democrat. It is important that when we use our voice, when we speak, we speak accurately. Number one, they refuse to speak about the fact that this bill is about ending an emergency relating to a fentanyl crisis. Number two, every single item that they like to talk about on tariffs and Canada are literally items that are exempt from tariffs in Canada. It is very important, certainly as one of 435 in the House of Representatives, that you know what you are talking about. It is especially important as the number two person on the Foreign Affairs Committee that you know what you are talking about when you talk about tariffs. There are not Canada beef tariffs, not Canada potash tariffs or dairy or food or grain or fertilizer. The list goes on and on. They mentioned coffee I don't know how many times. The only things that there are tariffs on are things that are coming in from third-party countries into Canada and then coming into the United States of America. If it is grown in Canada, there is not a tariff on it. It is very important that my colleagues know that and recognize that and speak accurately in the positions that they are in. Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what this is about. My colleagues say there is no emergency. In fact, my colleague Mr. Meeks said that if you think there is a crisis, if you think this is an emergency, then vote. Those were his words. I think the only person on that side who might be able to change the mind of Democrats is my colleague, Mr. Meeks, who is, again, unwilling to acknowledge that the death of 5,000 people in his State from fentanyl alone in 1 year is an emergency. He is unwilling to acknowledge it. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the remainder of my time here, about 1 minute, and give my colleague the opportunity one last time to correct the record for his New Yorkers. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. MAST. Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths aren't an emergency?

Mr. MAST. Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths are an emergency? Five thousand deaths in his State in 1 year from fentanyl-- preventable. The President is doing everything he can to stop it with drug boats, with the Caribbean, with the northern border, with the southern border. Crickets. You could hear a pin drop in here. Not a word from them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or its designee; that all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution be waived; that the joint resolution be considered as read; that all points of order against the provisions in the joint resolution be waived; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designee.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3497, the Medal of Sacrifice Act. Its purpose is singular. It is of the highest importance to honor fallen law enforcement officers and first responders. This bill, this medal, came to be in this way on November 21, 2024, because my community lost three Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputies in one moment: Deputy Ralph ``Butch'' Waller, Deputy Ignacio ``Dan'' Diaz, and Deputy Luis Paez. They were three motorcycle officers, all killed. At their memorial service to honor them, President Trump, myself, and a few of our friends, Eric and Dan, we were having a conversation that there is no medal which is awarded posthumously to law enforcement officers and first responders killed in the line of duty directly from the Office of President and on behalf of a grateful nation. Out of this horrific tragedy, the medal of sacrifice was born. Six months later, I had the profound honor of standing alongside President Trump in the Oval Office as he presented the first medals of sacrifice to the families of those three fallen Palm Beach County Sheriff's Deputies that were lost on that day, three lions of our community. These men gave their lives in service each and every day. In the end, they gave the last breath in their lungs and the last beat of their heart as so many of our law enforcement and first responders across our country do each year. There is not a recognition that can ever bring them back. There is not an award that could ever repay their sacrifice. What we can do is ensure that their courage and their service and their legacies are recognized by the highest office of our land, the Office of President. The medal of sacrifice will ensure that when a family member, a spouse, a son, a daughter, or a department, that when they reflect on the end of watch for their friend or their hero or their loved one, they will know that it is the whole of America that remembers with them. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to send a clear message to the families who have given so much, suspend the rules, and pass the Medal of Sacrifice Act.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of January 21, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say this twice, once for each of my colleagues over here managing, Representative Meeks and Representative McGovern: There are no troops in Venezuela. Let me say it one more time for you all: There are no troops in Venezuela. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, neither of my colleagues bothered to say anything about what their bill they are bringing forward actually does. They didn't say a word about it. Let's quote their own bill for them, since they clearly don't want to talk about it. They want to ``remove U.S. Forces from hostilities in Venezuela.'' That is what the bill says. Anybody can go and read it, black ink, white paper. Let's get straight to the point. The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. I know they all predicted there was going to be some forever protracted war, but we were never at war with Venezuela. There are no boots on the ground. Democrats are asking us to vote on a resolution about a situation that literally does not exist. We do not have anybody there in Venezuela fighting. There are no tanks on the ground in Caracas. There are no snipers in the tree line. It doesn't exist. Again, we are not at war. Maybe they are conferring about that right now. Let me confer with my colleagues a minute. Are we at war? I confirmed with my staff we are not at war. Are there any troops on the ground? I confirmed with my staff also there are no troops on the ground. Mr. Speaker, they should confer with their staff. I see them doing that. Their Senate Democrat colleagues tried to bring this exact same resolution to the floor of the Senate, but even the Senate was smart enough to pull it because they didn't want to be embarrassed. Let's say it again. We are not at war. Most of the Democrats predicted that we were going to be in some forever war. Which, again, by the way, they said after the strike hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities, their nuclear infrastructure, they all said we were going to be in a forever war. We weren't. Then they said the same thing years ago when President Trump killed Qasem Soleimani. We were going to be in this forever protracted war. Guess what. We weren't. We haven't been, not for one moment since then. My Democratic colleagues are batting zero in predicting forever wars. Operation Absolute Resolve was a law enforcement action to bring Nicolas Maduro, an indicted narcoterrorist with a $50 million bounty, to justice. President Trump finished the job. Thank you, President Trump, for finishing the job. It was literally over before breakfast. I have been in war. I can tell you that an operation that is over before breakfast is not a war. The Department of War--let me say this again--is not engaged in any hostilities within the Venezuelan territory or with the Venezuelan military. They are not in tank battles. There are no tactical operations centers there. There are no convoys. There are no U.S. mess halls over there. There are no field hospitals. There are no trenches with infantry soldiers shooting at each other. We were not even there long enough for soldiers to heat up an MRE. That is what we eat in the field in the military, guys. Yet, just to give you a level of peace of mind because you are curious about this, Secretary Rubio confirmed in his letter last week that no U.S. Armed Forces are in Venezuela. He also confirmed that, should there be any military operations that would put our forces into hostilities with Venezuela, that the administration will provide the appropriate notifications to Congress; he literally said this in his letter. What is this really about, this resolution that you all refused to even say a word about in your opening statements? It is about spite. It is about the fact that you don't want President Trump to arrest Maduro, and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought Maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history. Your hypocrisy is clear, as you chant and you lead your no kings protests, but when it comes to taking down a dictator, you crawl into a corner. You curl up, and you start to cry about it. This is about your base having protests to free Maduro. This is about appeasing your far-left friends. Now, whether my colleagues want to admit it or not, the world is a safer place because President Trump had the backbone and the stones to do what nobody else would: bring Nicolas Maduro to justice. Let me say this as affirmatively as possible: If anybody votes ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution that my colleagues didn't want to describe, they are stupid. Because, again, there is nobody at war and there are no forces in hostilities in Venezuela. It would be like them calling me today to take a pie out of the oven that we all ate a month ago. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I will say that this will probably be the only apology that they will get out of me today: I apologize for talking about the resolution and the text of the resolution that they still refuse to talk about. They are not willing to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there it was again, a forever war. President Trump has never brought America into a forever war. Any operation he has conducted is pretty much done before breakfast, just like Venezuela. I think my Democrat colleagues can't wrap their heads around that something can be about more than one thing at a time. It can be about Maduro and his lawlessness. It can be about drugs. It can be about the people of Venezuela. It can also be about making sure sanctioned oil doesn't flow around the globe. It can be about more than one thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my friend.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, again, my Democrat colleagues are not speaking about the words of the resolution, the basic grammar. It says: Remove forces from hostilities. There are no forces in Venezuela. They can't just make up words. I know they like to do that. They like to say plural pronouns can be used on one person and things like that, but they can't just make up grammar. Write the bill right if you want to do it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, it is always a laughable argument when Democrats try to say the President is enriching himself. Just as one example, in this case you don't see him collecting a $50 million bounty for bringing in Nicolas Maduro, a bounty that the previous administration agreed with, because he is never in it for the money. He is in it for America every single time. I would encourage them to talk to their colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and ask her if things are better or worse for Venezuelans today than they were under Maduro. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. MAST. My colleague is still not talking about the six lines of the resolution that says to remove forces from Venezuela. They are not talking about it because there are no forces in Venezuela. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that President Trump has yet to start any war in either administration. His fight every day is protect the American homeland, protect the people of the United States of America, and he has done a damn good job. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. The President never explained it to me. Maybe he was just trying to make room for Maduro and his wife.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me answer some of the questions that my colleagues put up. Why did President Trump take Maduro? It was to protect the homeland of the United States of America, as he has done with action after action after action. It is the same reason that two Presidents put a warrant, a bounty, on Nicolas Maduro--not just President Trump, but also President Biden. That is why Nicolas Maduro was snatched up, because of his poisoning of the people of the United States of America. Again, something can be true and also be true about another action and another action and another action. It was because of the bounty. It was because of the warrant. It was because of the drugs that he was bringing to the United States of America. It was because of his partnership with China, Iran, and Russia, to be their foothold in the Western Hemisphere for their nefarious activities. It was because of the illegal shipments of oil that they were moving on Russian ships to China that were coming out of Venezuela. It was because of a lot of things that this took place. Does the President have a plan for the future? He does, 100 percent: free and fair elections, freedom for the people of Venezuela. Ask the people of Venezuela if that is what they want. Ask the people of Venezuela if they are better today than they were before President Trump snatched up Maduro. They will tell you they are. They are more free today, and they are hoping for more and more freedom each and every day. President Trump has brought hope to our homeland by protecting this homeland that has been ignored for so long. He has brought hope to so many others around the globe, the people of Venezuela, people across the Middle East, people across Europe, people in place after place because of his actions. He is the peace President. He has proven it over and over again. He has never been the President of forever wars. He has yet to create one. He has only worked in limited operations that protect the homeland of the United States of America and done the best job of it in the history of the United States of America. 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. 68 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 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of December 16, 2025, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 61) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with presidentially designated terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere, 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.