Relating to A National Emergency By the President on February 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

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, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

Would you like to respond: 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Do you want to answer?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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--

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source