Brian Mast

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Censured for her comments.

Mr. MAST. I am sorry. I didn't hear you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MAST. The objection--

Mr. MAST. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can there be an objection--

Mr. MAST. Can there be an objection to the Record being stricken from the Record? This is H. Res. 845, which was a bipartisan vote to censure the Representative for her genocidal comments, so can we--

Mr. MAST. So something in the Record already cannot be placed into the Record because this was a vote, bipartisan vote.

Mr. MAST. Interesting. I learned something new today. All right. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to submit for the Record another article: Watchdog release--titled--something titled--an article titled: ``Watchdog releases scathing report on Tlaib's alleged ties to terrorist groups, warning of potential risks.''

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

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the Rules Committee ranking member speak, as he is walking away right now, and here is something that he said. I think it is important for the American people to hear: ``Hard-earned money in the service of war crimes'' were his words. So we are debating right now whether to have our Armed Forces removed from Lebanon. The gentleman is implying that our Armed Forces who are there are engaged in war crimes. That is impugning our Armed Forces. That is despicable, and it is despicable to say, especially in the light of the fact that, what, our marines who are in the embassy are the ones who are in the service of war crimes? I see that he walked off. He doesn't want to listen to an analysis of his own comments. The marines in the embassy are engaged in war crimes? Is that what he is saying today? Those training the Lebanese Armed Forces are engaged in war crimes? I don't think he wants to defend those comments because he walked off. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I would just let everybody know, again, there has been no mention of Hezbollah, no mention at all from this side about Hezbollah, the rockets they are firing into Israel, the UAVs, the casualties, or all the Americans that Hezbollah has killed in the past--no mention of either. I am curious, Mr. Speaker, if the next speaker over there will have any mention of Hezbollah. I will be interested to hear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, we have had another speaker on the left and still no mention of Hezbollah. I have a very serious question. This is serious. I understand my colleagues oppose Israel killing Hezbollah terrorists. Do they also oppose the Lebanese Armed Forces killing Hezbollah terrorists? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, my colleague may want to stick around. I am going to reference her words. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic staffer who was interjecting themselves into the debate here was confusing Representative Fine with Representative Miller.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am a Republican. I am not offended by them swearing. It is okay. I can handle it. I can handle nasty looks, too. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am going to reference the words of my colleague just now. She said that no one on our side supports terrorist organizations; for us to say so is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, to have an entire debate about Lebanon and removing U.S. Forces from Lebanon that aren't there without a single mention of the word Hezbollah, who is actively trying to kill anybody that they can, that is a support for a terrorist organization. For our colleagues, I will bring Iran into this more specifically beyond just Hezbollah being a proxy of Iran, for our colleagues to go out there and say day after day that there is no imminent threat from Iran when Iran is absolutely--and acknowledged by everybody bipartisanly--the largest state sponsor of terror, that is a support for the largest state sponsor of terror. For our colleagues to go out there and pretend as though we haven't been attacked 350 times in the 30 months prior to Epic Fury even beginning, for them to pretend that we were not being attacked, not being struck by Iran, that is a support for terrorists. Every single time that my colleagues on the other side deny, turn their backs to the United States of America getting hit by the terrorists of Iran or their proxies like Hezbollah or others, they are supporting a terrorist organization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, again I will just reference the remarks of my colleague, examine what was said. She said that Israel is going scorched earth. I would just tell my colleague that if Israel--and by the way, this is after a little while ago she was saying they are needing the United States of America's intelligence. The context of this is important. If Israel was going scorched earth on them, they wouldn't need American intelligence for targeting. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self) such time as he may consume.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, again, is beyond reckless and beyond untruthful. The entire arguments that we were listening to of accusing America of participating in a genocide that is not existing, it is Israel going into Lebanon killing Hezbollah terrorists. I wish they had kept their map up because they showed a large map of all this territory where Israel had gone on the offensive, and they said that they had killed 4,000 people. Again, Mr. Speaker, if Israel had gone scorched-earth on them, you would have way more than 4,000 dead in all that territory, but what was done was precise strikes against terrorists targeting Israel, Americans, and anybody else whom they could reach out and touch, and they are being killed for that. This resolution impugns our military. This resolution impugns the patriotism of the U.S. military by saying that they are participating in a war that they are not and by saying that they are participating in a genocide where they are not. This resolution is certainly shameful in that way, but, again, it is very reckless because it would demand that we remove forces from places like our embassy in Lebanon, remove all forces from Lebanon that would mean removing our Marines from the embassy in Lebanon which, again, just shows how reckless and shameful and how ill thought-out this resolution is. Mr. Speaker, while it has been an exciting evening with all of these words being taken down and everything else going on, 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. 84 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 and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Tlaib of Michigan, or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be made in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 86 in the House if called up by the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or its designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; 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 and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of May 20, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with 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 materials on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me what exactly my colleagues are trying to do. We were on this merry-go-round last week, and last week my colleagues across the aisle here voted to say let's remove all U.S. forces from any hostilities with Iran, while at the same time they acknowledged the imminent threat that Iran poses against us. They said Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and Iran wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist proxies, and obtain a nuclear weapon to do so, as well. They acknowledge all of these things, but then they say let's be a United States of America that does not respond to threats against the United States of America. I don't understand it. I look forward to hearing the explanation from my colleagues, although it will be unexplainable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, this week, my colleague wants to make the argument about an imminent threat. I am glad he wants to have that debate. Last week, my colleague voted, as I outlined already, to say literally that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and Iran wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist proxies, and, if obtained, a nuclear weapon. I would ask my colleague across the aisle: You voted to say Iran was an imminent threat. How do you define an imminent threat? You voted for it last week. 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 see the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee running off. I don't think he wants to stay to answer questions. Good, please stay. Number one, imminence matters. My colleagues--this being one of them--voted last week to say--let me read it again here: Iran wants to attack the United States, our allies, with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon. That, to me, is the definition of ``imminence.'' I see him running off. I guess he doesn't want to explain whether that is a vote to say they are an imminent threat. I am happy to yield him a couple of seconds. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for the purpose of a colloquy.