Brian Mast

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize National Estuaries Week and our communities that are truly blessed with one of the most unique ecosystems in the world. The Everglades and our coastal estuaries, such as the St. Lucie River and Indian River Lagoon, provide both environmental and economic benefits, and we all must do our part to keep them clean. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), estuaries play a huge role not just in the Sunshine State but to our Nation as a whole. 40 percent of Americans live in estuary regions, and those regions contribute nearly half of the Nation's economic output, despite taking up only 13 percent of the land area of the continental United States. The importance of these ecosystems extends beyond their environmental benefits. The number of people in the United States engaged in outdoor recreation has never been higher. Boating, fishing, hunting, kayaking, paddle boarding, and birding are all major economic drivers and represent unique ways to interact with estuaries. Boating and fishing combined was the largest recreational activity for the Nation in 2024, coming in at $36.8 billion in current-dollar value added. These numbers demonstrate just how important our waterways are to the American economy and to the millions of Americans who enjoy them every year. For communities in Florida, these waterways are not just places to enjoy the outdoors, they are part of our way of life and support local economies across our state. But our ecosystems are at risk--whether it is toxic discharges or manatees dying across our estuaries, the problems facing places like the Indian River Lagoon, the Caloosahatchee, the St. Lucie, and the Lake Worth Lagoon have shown over and over again that we must do more to conserve and protect our state. This year, I am proud to be the sponsor of a bipartisan resolution that formally recognizes September 19, 2026, to September 26, 2026 as National Estuaries Week. The resolution reminds all of us that these habitats are critical and that Florida cannot wait around for help. We must work every day to preserve this environment.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. I don't think I am going to need 11\1/2\ minutes, but I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by answering some of my colleague's questions. When will we find the stomach in Congress to hold hearings on this war? I mentioned it already. The Committee on Foreign Affairs not too long ago held a hearing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The ranking member, as I pointed out, was walking out of the room, not wanting to stay and respond. He left midway through the hearing and didn't even want to stay to hear Secretary of State Rubio. We have held hearings. Democrats, unfortunately, wasted a lot of their time trying to make quips about Secretary Rubio's shoes and other silly things really unbefitting members of that committee. This resolution, in my opinion, is designed for two things. I don't believe it to be serious. I have seen the same language numerous times now. It is designed for political points. This is a resolution stating remove all of these forces from hostilities. I gave you a comprehensive list of forces, but you can't tell me one that you want removed. That is just political theater. You are just saying you want something done, and either you haven't thought through what you actually want done or there is really nothing you want done. You just want to pretend and say it. That is political. I think the second point of this resolution is to destroy our ability to pressure the Iranian regime by removing any offensive capabilities that we have in the region. I don't think they want an ability for us to go out there and say: We are going to hold this blockade over Iran because Iran has been attacking our ships, not just in the year 2026, but in the years 2025, 2024, and 2023, and well beyond. I have given the list on this floor numerous times of hundreds of attacks just in the 30 months before Epic Fury even took place. Sometimes the only choice you have is you are going to hit back. There have been a lot of questions asked on this floor. What I would like to know is: When are my Democrat colleagues going to have the stomach to hit back against an enemy that has been hitting us? Because, apparently, you don't have it. You are unwilling to do so, and you are willing to come to the floor of the House and say things so untruthful, such as that there weren't any Americans killed prior to Epic Fury, to quote my colleague on the other side of the aisle, when just before that, I identified to my colleague three U.S. servicemembers who were killed, Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Moffett, and a list of hundreds who were injured by Iranian attacks. All of those things were ignored so that they could say that there was nobody killed. Why ignore those things? Why ignore something so serious as servicemembers, our brothers and sisters, our brothers-and sisters-in-arms, being killed? Why ignore that? It is because it doesn't fit the political narrative. That is a sad thing. I have the stomach to hit back our enemies. Some of my colleagues don't. That is the question on the floor here: Do you have the stomach to hit back our enemies, or are you going to throw up the flag of surrender and say: Remove these forces. We don't know what they are. We don't know what they are doing. We don't know the capabilities that they bring. We don't know the increased danger that it puts other forces in to remove them. We don't know anything about it, but remove them because it is politically expeditious, instead of having the stomach to go out there and seek and destroy the enemies of the United States of America, as we trained to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of September 14, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93), 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 material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the resolution again asking for the President to ``remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.'' I have spoken at length on this floor about Iranian threats, what they have been doing to the United States of America for the last 50 years or the last 50 months, the people that they have killed, the attacks that they have levied against us. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear from my colleagues, the authors, and the cosponsors of this legislation what do they think that we are defending the United States of America from? Again, I have spoken at length about it. I would love to know, do they see a threat? Do they see no threat? More specifically, about the letter of this law, the letter of this bill, what is it that the sponsors want removed? That is what it says: ``Remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.'' What is it that you want removed? Do you want us to remove refueling aircraft so they cannot support Israel or Saudi Arabia? Do you want us to remove our amphibious ready groups? Shall we remove our MV-22 Ospreys, our Chinooks, our heavy-lift helicopters, our attack helicopters or our utility helicopters? What about our Air Force and our naval aviation? What would you like removed there? We have veterans from the Marine Corps, Army brothers, Army Rangers, others over here that I am guessing are here to speak about what they want removed from this space. Do you want F-15s removed, F-15 Eagles? Do you want F-16 Falcons removed? Do you want F-35A or B removed or do you want them to remain? How about F-18 Super Hornets? What is it that you want out of there? That is what you are asking for: ``Remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.'' What about our KC-135 Stratotankers or our Pegasus? What about our command presence? What is it that you want removed? This is your resolution. Do you want signals intelligence, electronic warfare, jamming maritime surveillance, ground surveillance removed? What is it that you want removed? What about in terms of long-range precision strike capabilities? Would you like our carrier-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles removed from the space? Do you want our air-launched precision weapons, our ground-launched precision fires, our ship-launched precision systems removed? What is it that you want removed? Do you want JDAMs removed? What about in terms of drones? What is it that you want to remain or want removed? How about one-way attack drones, small commercial-style UAVs, larger reconnaissance-strike UAVs? What personnel do you want removed? Because that is what this is calling for, removing all U.S. Forces. Do you want logistics personnel removed? Intelligence? Maintenance? Medical? Communications? Headquarters command and control personnel? What do you want removed? Do you want marines at our embassies removed? Do you want pararescue jumpers removed? Do you want us to remove some or all of our Patriot missile batteries from the area? Can we destroy a missile but not destroy a launcher? What is it that you want to take place? Is all of this just because you do not want a naval blockade around Iran? Or is that not it? I would ask that you be clear because I would love to hear from you exactly what forces you are demanding be removed. To the sponsor of our bill, I would quote Representative Moulton: ``We have to acknowledge that Iran is a threat to American interests.'' To continue that quote--in fact, a brother in arms, and other brothers in arms over there, to continue that quote: ``I fought Iranians on the ground in Iraq in 2004. It was bloody. We won. And if necessary, I will fight Iran again.'' Iran was attacking us then, as you spoke about, and Iran has been attacking us at all points between that moment and now. I have spoken about it at length on this floor. I have submitted for the Record the ships they have attacked and the servicemembers that they killed long before Epic Fury. They are continuously fighting us. They are a continuous, ongoing threat to the United States and a continuous threat to our allies. That had not stopped until a memorandum of understanding, and then they decided to resume attacks again. So my question is, again, to the letter of this resolution: What is it that you want removed as you wrote this bill demanding? 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 would first respond to my colleague, the ranking member, about hearings that we have had. He has heard me say this before. He lived it. We had Secretary Rubio not too long ago. The ranking member left halfway through the hearing never to return. He didn't want to hear from Secretary Rubio. Some of his members took their time to talk about Secretary Rubio's shoes. That was their opportunity to hear from the administration at the highest levels, to talk a little bit about the threat of Iran. I could use any window of time. I could identify hundreds of attacks in just the 30 months before Epic Fury, or I could identify hundreds more in the last 30 years. I am going to use the window of time to identify a few, since my colleague, the marine, Representative Moulton, made the comments that I quoted earlier. In January 2020, 109 U.S. troops suffered attack and injuries after an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. That was just one attack that took place in that ongoing window of time. In March of '23, an Iranian drone attack killed an American contractor and wounded five U.S. servicemembers and another contractor in a strike on a coalition base in Syria. In October of '23, Iran-backed terrorists, of course, as everybody is well aware, killed 46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 Americans in the October 7 genocidal massacre. In January of '24, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed 3 U.S. servicemembers and wounded more than 40 other servicemembers in a drone attack at Tower 22: Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Moffett. In November of '24, an Iranian national and IRGC asset was charged with plotting to assassinate President Trump. I have more. The list goes on and on. These are just some of the many attacks that I could list since Representative Moulton made the quote that I spoke about, where he is talking about his service and before Epic Fury began. This is the continual threat, the imminent threat that Iran is and has been. They attack the United States of America every single chance they get. They attack in the Strait of Hormuz--not just the United States of America but any country going through there--every chance they get. This is just the first time that the United States of America has said enough is enough, that we will not tolerate this any longer. That same entity that has been attacking us endlessly for all of these years will not be an entity that is allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Why? Because, at best, they now have the capability to hold the entire Gulf hostage because they have a nuclear weapon, and, at worst, they are an entity that does what they have been doing: utilize every asset at their disposal to attack the United States of America and our allies. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for a few minutes, and Ranking Member Meeks spoke for a few minutes. I don't know if we have come to that time where my colleague on the other side is happy to detail the pieces of equipment that he wants removed from the battle space, as he mentioned. As is the letter of this resolution, he wants to remove these U.S. forces from hostilities. I am hoping that now is that later time that the Representative will detail what he wants removed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. My colleague said: Good for Iran; bad for the U.S. Good for Iran; bad for the U.S. He went back and forth. The best thing for Iran are Representatives that are going to deny that Iran was killing Americans. To quote my colleague, literally just now, after I just identified to him Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Moffett killed at Tower 22 by the hand of Iran, he literally just told us: zero Americans killed. Somebody that is treating our servicemembers, their sacrifice like that, that is the best thing for Iran. The best thing for Iran are those that have this idea that: Well, you know what? Iran has been attacking us for all these years, but if we bring that to an end, they might fight back. People that are scared of Iran fighting back when we stopped them, that is the best thing for Iran. My colleague opened up by saying: Nobody on this floor is denying that Iran has been a threat. You don't have to look any further than immediately to your left. In one of the previous debates my colleague was discussing, he has seen no imminent threat from Iran. Ranking Member Meeks argued on this floor literally numerous times: no imminent threat from Iran. Even though all of these Members, both Republican and Democrat, came to the floor of the House and literally took a vote to say-- Representative Moulton did not vote in favor of this, but many did--use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why? Why would that be a vote that overwhelmingly the floor of the House would vote in favor of? It is because of the extreme, imminent threat that Iran proved themselves to be each and every day. The dozens of times a month that Iran attacks the United States of America, month in, month out, regardless of the year, that is why everybody overwhelmingly took a vote to say: Use any and all means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The best thing for Iran are Representatives that are going to come to this floor, forget that they took a vote to prevent Iran by any means from obtaining a nuclear weapon, because it is politically convenient for them to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the author of the bill that he need only look to his left to see somebody who totally disagreed. There are people that are down here denying that there is any threat posed by Iran. There is not agreement. It is something that, again, the floor of the House voted and said, use any and all means necessary to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. You have people who can't even acknowledge that they are a threat. It was said that we can't just go out there and wage war every time a threat just pops up. Iran is not a threat that just popped up. Iran is not some poorly funded militia. It is a country of 92 million people that has been putting every bit of spare currency into creating terrorist groups, funding military, developing nuclear weapons, and continually working to control and threaten the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a new thing. Let's bring something new into this conversation. You take a company like Lloyds of London or some other big insurance company. They, literally, are out there writing policies for years, not just since Epic Fury, but for years, for every ship going in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, on their way in and on their way out. Why are they writing these catastrophic risk insurance policies for every ship going in and every ship going out? They do so because of the threat that Iran has been demonstrating day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, every single year. There is a forever war. President Trump is absolutely against forever wars. That is what he is ending. Iran has been waging war forever against the United States of America. The forever of this regime, they have been waging war against the United States of America. It comes to an end in only one way: us bringing it to an end. That is what the United States of America is working to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague said at the end of his comments that he would like to see the day that this war comes to an end. I don't think my colleague wants to see that day because, again, my colleague brought forward a resolution today saying remove any of these forces that are engaged with Iran from the area. Those are not the exact words, but that is basically what it says. I have yet to see the identification of which forces my colleague wants out of there. It was promised. I haven't heard it, but I don't think that they want to see that day. The strategy, one of many that is taking place, as you probably heard Secretary Rubio state: They fire at one of our ships, we destroy one of theirs. That is a change from what has taken place. They attack the United States of America or our interests or our allies, we respond. That is the change. Not everybody has the stomach to respond to threats. That is just the world we live in. Few are capable, and few are willing. This administration has the stones to say that Iran has been attacking us endlessly, this comes to an end. They attack us. We destroy them. They attack us. We destroy them. My colleague would capture that as good for Iran, but the truth is it is anything but good for Iran. What took place against Iran? Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo destroyed. There were 13,000 targets struck, 2,000 command-and-control targets defeated, 1,450 defense- and industrial-based targets destroyed, 1,500 air defense targets destroyed, 700 mine systems destroyed, 800 attack drones destroyed, 600 naval targets destroyed, 450 ballistic missile targets destroyed, 1,000 incoming attack drones intercepted, 700 ballistic missile threats intercepted. The list goes on and on. None of that is good for Iran. Every single one of those that Iran has done, whether since Epic Fury or before, was intended to indiscriminately kill any civilian that they can, not just military targets but anybody that they can hit. Just like October 7 was to indiscriminately kill anybody that they can, not just military targets but anybody, civilian or otherwise. That is what Iran's aim has been dozens of times a month, and that is what the United States of America is bringing to an end, whether by their willingness to leave their ways or when they are no longer capable to do so. That is the way that this ends for Iran. It does take a strong stomach to do that. It does take individuals that are willing to acknowledge there were U.S. servicemembers that were killed before Epic Fury. If you are not recognizing that very serious and simple fact, then you are not understanding the threat of Iran and have no business dealing with it. Mr. Speaker, 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. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 93 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 Moulton of Massachusetts or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 89 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 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York and Representative Jayapal of Washington, or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of July 22, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) 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 extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will take some of my time and give recognition to those who we have lost in the fight to end the Iranian terror regime. I am going to say their names, going to tell you where they served, and I am going to show you their photo: Sergeant Angel S. Rampersad, United States Army; Private First Class Isabella Gonzales, United States Army; First Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan, United States Army; Sergeant Michael Emmanuel Swinton, United States Army; Lance Corporal Kevin Melendez, United States Marine Corps; Tech Sergeant Tyler Simmons, United States Air Force; Tech Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, United States Air Force; Captain Curtis Angst, United States Air Force; Captain Seth Koval, United States Air Force; Captain Ariana Savino, United States Air Force; Major John ``Alex'' Klinner, United States Air Force; Sergeant Benjamin N. Pennington, United States Army; Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, United States Army; Major Jeffrey Robert O'Brien, United States Army; Sergeant Declan J. Coady, United States Army; Sergeant First Class Noah L. Tietjens, United States Army; Sergeant First Class Nicole M. Amor, United States Army; and Captain Cody A. Khork, United States Army. The sacrifice of these servicemembers will never be forgotten by me, and their commitment to their country, our country, the United States of America; their commitment to their loved ones; their commitment to seeing Iran's reign of terror and regime finally come to an end; and their commitment to ending the regime that killed countless American lives. That is what these servicemembers have been fighting against. That is what they gave their lives fighting against, a regime that has been attacking and taking the lives of United States of America's servicemembers and citizens for years. To belittle this mission is to belittle and demean the very service these members gave their lives for. Their sacrifice was not meaningless. This operation is bringing a reckoning for the hundreds of times Iran has attacked and killed people of the United States of America. What were those times? I am not going to go all the way back to the Beirut bombings. I wouldn't have time for that in tonight's debate with the time that we are limited to. I am only going to go back for the last couple of years to talk about what Iran has been doing to the United States of America, though my colleagues will argue that there has never been any imminent threat against the United States of America by Iran. IRGC naval forces capture 10 American sailors and two boats. Separate incident: Four patrol boats from Iran's IRGC attack the USS Nitze. Separate incident: United States Naval Ship Invincible attacked by multiple approaching IRGC fast-attack boats, small attack boats. Separate incident: IRGC vessel attacks USS Thunderbolt in Persian Gulf. Separate incident: Iranian drone attacks the USS Nimitz as fighter jets are landing. Separate attack: IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on two Saudi-, one UAE-, and one Norwegian-registered ships. Separate incident: IRGC Navy attacks four ships--Saudi ships, Norwegian ships, and a UAE ship. Separate incident: IRGC Navy attack one Japanese ship and one Norwegian-owned ship as they transit the Gulf of Oman. Separate incident: IRGC shoot down U.S. aircraft operating over international waters, over the Strait of Hormuz. Separate incident: IRGC Navy seizes British-flagged, Swedish-owned tanker, and they hold the crew hostage for more than 2 months. On that same day, the IRGC also detained a Liberian-flagged tanker. Separate incident: Iran attacks, by helicopter and drone, a U.S. Navy ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Separate incident: IRGC Navy attack and seize Hong Kong-flagged tanker. Separate incident: 11 IRGC Navy small boats attack five U.S. Navy vessels. Separate incident: Iran vessels attack U.S. ships, including U.S. Coast Guard cutter. Separate incident: Iranian personnel board a Liberian-flagged tanker. Separate incident: IRGC attack and seize South Korean tanker, in the Strait. Separate incident: Tanker MT Mercer attack by Iran off of Oman, killing two people. Separate incident: Asphalt Princess attacked off of UAE, boarded by Iranians. Separate incident: Iranian forces seized two Greek vessels as they attacked them. Separate incident: Tanker Pacific Zircon was hit by an Iranian drone. Separate incident: Iran's Navy capture off the Marshall Islands a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. Separate incident: IRGC seize Panamanian-flagged oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz, in international waters. Separate incident: Iran Navy seize Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker St. Nikolas while transiting the Gulf of Oman. Separate incident: IRGC seize containership MSC, in a helicopter, and also raided in the Strait of Hormuz. Separate incident: IRGC seize another tanker, the Talara. Separate incident: IRGC seize foreign oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Separate incident: U.S.-flagged tanker attacked by Iranian gunboats in the Strait of Hormuz. The list goes on and on. I could keep reading this for probably another at least 10 minutes with the pages that I have of these. That is what our U.S. servicemembers are fighting against, an Iran that chooses to wage war against the United States of America day in, day out, week in, week out. Prior to Epic Fury ever beginning, the 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning, Iran attacked us over 350 times. That is what our U.S. servicemembers are fighting against, the Iran that, prior to Epic Fury ever beginning, killed three U.S. servicemembers at Tower 22. That is what our U.S. servicemembers are fighting against. My colleagues will say that no imminent threat ever existed. They are the same colleagues that used to tell us we should use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they recognized back then that that is the Iran that we have been dealing with day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, the Iran that has been relentlessly attacking the United States of America tankers and containerships, United States Navy vessels, Coast Guard vessels, firing on our personnel in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, anywhere in the Middle East that they could fire on them. What has changed since these attacks? Everything that I listed off happened well before Operation Epic Fury. What has changed? The Ayatollah that ordered the attacks on our bases, on the bases of our allies, is now rotting 6 feet under. What has changed? Their navy that carried out countless attacks on our cargo ships, all those that I listed off just now, the navy that was attacking, seizing, holding hostage, they are sitting at the bottom of the waters that they used to float in. Their Air Force that carried out attacks on our bases and against our allies, they have been grounded and obliterated. Those are just a couple of the things that have changed. This was not a war of choice. This was not President Trump's war of choice. This is and always has been Iran's choice that they made each and every day for the last 47 years. What I gave you were just some of the incidents of the last couple years. We simply said: No more wars. Instead, we are putting a stop to the old ones. This ends here. This ends now. That country, their IRGC, their proxies that have been attacking us endlessly will no longer exist and will not obtain a nuclear weapon, whether my colleagues forgot that they voted to say that or not. Mr. Speaker, in regard to today's War Powers Resolution that asks for the removal of our U.S. Forces, as my colleagues have done week in and week out, forgetting about every single thing that our servicemembers are out there fighting against, I urge a ``no'' vote on their legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, both of my colleagues said forever war. I stood here and read for about 15 minutes about the attacks that Iran has been leveling against us just for the last couple of years: 350 attacks, 30 months, 200 wounded, four killed. That is the forever war. It has been going on for 47 years, but that is just the last 30 months of the forever war Iran has been waging against us. To end a war that is waged against us every single day, you have to end the people that are waging that war. That is what is taking place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that I thank him for the recognition of my service, and I recognize him for his service, as well. I am proud to have brothers in arms, but I cannot let what was said, that is unequivocally false, stand. Number one, North Korea and Russia have not killed 4 Americans, wounded 200, and attacked over 350 times in the 30 months just prior to Epic Fury beginning. There is no comparison. That is what Iran has done. Unequivocally, Iran was working to develop a nuclear weapon in their research facilities and development facilities of Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. You need only listen to the words of Iranian generals and the Ayatollah in the last couple weeks and months saying they will not cease their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Don't take my word for it. Just listen to the words of the Iranian leadership. 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 going to begin by agreeing with something that my colleague said. We didn't ask for this. We didn't ask for Iran, again, as I have said already, to attack us over 350 times in just the 30 months prior to Operation Epic Fury. We did not ask for that. I want to read from the concurrent resolution offered by my colleague from Washington: ``Remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,'' with the exception of forces that would ``prevent the United States from defending itself, its Armed Forces, its diplomatic facilities, or allied states, from imminent attack.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to tell us which units, which ships she would like removed.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I would read from the resolution again: Remove United States Forces from hostilities against Iran, except for those that are tasked with defending it, its armed forces, its diplomatic facilities from imminent attack. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) asking what forces she would like removed.

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, again, we have an author of this bill that is demanding U.S. Forces be removed, and the author of this bill has absolutely no clue what forces she wants to remove. That is beyond irresponsible, to say the least, to write a resolution, bring it to the floor, demand something with the weight of this issue, a nuclear-armed Iran, an Iran that has been attacking us, killing our people for years--350 attacks, 4 dead, 200 wounded just in the 30 months before Epic Fury began. She says remove all forces--that is the legislation before us--and has no clue what forces she wants to remove. There are a lot of adjectives I could use, but my words will be taken down if I start to use them, so I am going to close. My colleagues keep saying that this is a war of choice. The Islamic Republic has made their choice. They chose to attack Americans every day. I read off for 15 minutes the attacks that have been coming against us. They chose to support terrorist proxies, killing of Americans and our allies to develop weapons of mass destruction and missiles to reach out and touch our homeland and our allies. They also chose to scrap the MOU that President Trump put in place when he ended Epic Fury and to again engage in hostilities and attempt to extort the world for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. We do have a choice, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes the only choice is whether you are going to hit back when you, yourself, are getting hit. We have been hit, day in, day out--I read it off--and for the first time, we are finally responding. 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. 108 in the House if called up by the chair on the Committee of 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 Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.

Mr. MAST

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to order of the House of June 29, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 108) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Lebanon, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 oppose this resolution. However, I will say that I am very glad to hear the debate offered by my colleague, Ranking Member Meeks. He spoke about Hezbollah. We went through an entire debate several weeks ago where the opposition refused to mention that Hezbollah even existed, so I am glad to hear Ranking Member Meeks bring that up. Hezbollah specifically targeting civilians with their every action, that is their MO. Israel specifically targeting terrorists, that is what is going on here. Now, as it relates to this piece of legislation, we have done this exercise before, and I am glad to hear the ranking member acknowledge that the United States is not engaged in any hostilities in Lebanon against Hezbollah. The U.S. is not at war in Lebanon. The U.S. is not engaged in hostilities in Lebanon. There are not U.S. combat forces conducting operations or engaged in hostilities in Lebanon. They are training the Lebanese Armed Forces. Why are they training them? Because there are at least 40,000, probably more, Hezbollah terrorists spread across the south of Lebanon that are actively engaged in targeting Israel and have been doing so for many years. Israel is over there doing a good job working to wipe those terrorists out right now, but this resolution is impossible to implement. Even if it passed, could the author explain to me which forces would be removed? If we don't have combat forces there, what forces are being removed? That is a very commonsense question. I don't think we will get an answer to it, Mr. Speaker. I will say something else that I am glad about in today's debate: The really stupid mistake that was made in the last attempt to do this was removed, where the author was seeking to remove the marines from our embassies, from the gates, from the front doors. I am glad that that was removed from this one, thankfully. This resolution still is not any less ridiculous than the last one. Again, the U.S. is not at war in Lebanon. Since we are here, let's address something today that this resolution fails to mention and what the author of this bill I think wants to avoid. Hezbollah is one of the world's most capable and dangerous terrorist organizations. They have killed hundreds of Americans, which makes it interesting to me that my colleague, who opened the remarks saying that it is not in our national interest to address them, they have killed hundreds of Americans. That is a pretty damn big national interest to me. As a U.S. servicemember, as an American, as somebody with teenagers that will hopefully put on a uniform in defense of this country at some point, I would say it is in our national interest. But, again, they are one of the world's most capable, dangerous terrorist organizations who have killed hundreds of Americans and attacked U.S. diplomatic and military personnel over and over again. I am not sure why my colleagues don't want to talk about that, and especially, again, the author of this bill last time failed to even mention the word ``Hezbollah'' or refused to mention the word ``Hezbollah'' because this resolution is a win for terrorists. That is what it is. If you are trying to decide who should have control of Lebanon, who should it belong to, should Lebanon belong to the Lebanese or should Lebanon belong to the terrorists, this resolution is a win for Lebanon to belong to terrorists. Let's also be clear that Hezbollah is the one holdout that is standing in the way of peace between Israel and Lebanon. The Lebanese Government wants the fighting to stop. Israel wants the fighting to stop. Who is it that wants the fighting to continue? That would be the one entity that is supported by this resolution, and that is Hezbollah. This is not about U.S. Forces. As was acknowledged already by my colleague, the ranking member, there are no U.S. Forces engaged in hostilities, and we all know that. Again, there are no forces fighting in Lebanon. This resolution is to undermine our national security. It is to embolden Hezbollah, which it absolutely does. Just its presence on the floor here, just its mere being brought up here emboldens Hezbollah and other terrorists, and all for the sake of political messaging. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is just as ridiculous--well, it is not quite as ridiculous this time as it was last time, given that it did finally remove that we wouldn't have to take our marines out of the embassy. It is not quite as ridiculous, but it is still significantly ridiculous. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.