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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) more time.

Is that an imminent threat?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Absolutely. I am happy to let you continue the dialogue if you want. I am not going to cut you off.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman say that because Iran is an imminent threat against us.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Representative Gottheimer dialoguing with me for a moment. I will give another quote that he offered. ``Iran's sole objective is to wreak havoc, create violence, cause instability, and cowardly murder U.S. servicemen and -women protecting our way of life.'' That is a quote from my colleague over there. I agree with everything that he said.

That is an outline of an imminent threat, as well as the ``whereas'' things that were added into this bill. It is an outline, an indictment of an imminent threat. Iran is an imminent threat against us. Iran is an imminent threat.

The imminent threat that has been going on against us, I will outline some more of it. And this relates to the Strait of Hormuz, not because of the combat actions that have taken place, but just because Iran is an imminent threat in what they have been doing. They captured sailors and two boats. Four patrol boats from Iran's IRGC attacked the USS Nitze, and the USNS Invincible was forced to change course because IRGC fast-attack crafts tried to run into it.

These are all separate incidents.

IRGC vessel attacks USS Thunderbolt in Persian Gulf.

Unarmed Iranian drone flies to USS Nimitz as fighter jets landing at night.

IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on two Saudi, one UAE, one Norwegian-registered ship, all harbored in UAE. These are going back years.

IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on Japanese ship and Norwegian-owned ships transiting the Gulf of Oman. This is, again, just going back in history.

IRGC personnel deploy surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. unmanned aircraft operating over international waters.

IRGC Navy seize British-flagged and Swedish-owned Stena Impero tanker while it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran attempts to stop British tanker British Heritage, and six U.S. Navy ships attacked by Iranian ships.

IRGC Navy forcibly board and detain Hong Kong-flagged SC Taipei, an oil tanker, in international waters.

Eleven IRGC Navy small boats attack five U.S. Navy vessels conducting routine exercises.

I have pages of these--I can go on--year after year after year.

I have at least one colleague over here who is willing to acknowledge the imminent threat that they are, what it is that they have been doing, longstanding, with the Strait of Hormuz.

Did the gentleman want to continue the conversation?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for the purpose of a colloquy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. I am glad you asked.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. My opinion is that, yes, both by the content of what it is that the administration has told me in whether it is full House classified briefings with the Secretary of War, the Secretary of State, General Caine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe; whether it is in expanded Gang of Eight meetings that Ranking Member Meeks and myself have been a part of, numerous of those; or other briefings that we have had.

I don't know how many briefings it is that you have had as a part of the Intelligence Committee, but I am tracking at least 30 separate briefings, and absolutely, I am satisfied with the content of which I am given.

On any given day, would I love to have more information that they have within a tactical operations center--a TOC, as we call it in the military--of what is going on? I would love to still be an operator inside of a TOC, watching ISR footage of exactly everything that is going on, but that is not the latitude that we have, to sit inside of those TOCs and observe everything that is going on, but I am satisfied.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. We all are, 30--at least 30 separate briefs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. I heard you say it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. I appreciate the colloquy.

I am going to respond to the trove of ridiculous things that I have heard said on this floor.

Speaking generally about life, I know that there are people out there that when they get hit, they curl up, they cry, and they don't deal with the situation. That is how some people deal with conflict.

I can't personally say that I have known people that get hit, and they deny that it happened at all. That is literally what we have going on here.

As my colleague says over and over, there is no imminent threat that is going on. The author of this bill acknowledged the imminent threat, wrote word after word, paragraph after paragraph in the very thing that my colleagues over there will vote ``yes'' on to outline specifically the imminent threat that Iran is. He wanted it to be known the imminent threat that Iran is, but my colleagues are denying the imminent threat. They are denying that we have got hit.

They say we started this war. To quote my colleague right now, Ranking Member Meeks, he said we started this war. That is a denial of every single time the United States of America has been hit. It is a denial of the times that they fired at us at Tower 22 and killed three Americans. It is a denial of the times that they fired at us in Iraq and Syria. It is a denial of the times that they fired at our ships that were passing through the straits and other places causing some of our jets to fall off the decks of our carriers. It is a denial to say we started this war, not all of those things that Iran did started this war.

I literally just read off a laundry list of things that Iran has done to us and to our allies over the years, attack after attack after attack, but according to my colleague, we started this war. Again, it is like getting hit in the face, and it is like no, no, that didn't happen, nobody hit me in the face. Black eye? No black eye. It didn't happen to me. I ran into a wall. That is like what we are living through right now.

I am going to give you some more of the things that they have done, and it is important because my colleague for the first time I have heard him define what ``imminent'' actually means to him. He said this is what imminent means to me, that they will utilize against us soon, was what was said--utilize against us soon.

So I just listed off a whole bunch of things, a whole bunch of attacks that were done to us immediately preceding our combat operations in Iran. That to me equals imminent. If they just did it, that means they would continue to do it soon.

But if we go back even further than that, we will list some more. MV Asphalt Princess, another ship, a tanker traveling from UAE to Oman, was attacked by Iran. They are our allies. An Iranian-flagged tanker seized two Greek tankers, Delta Poseidon and Prudent Warrior, in the Persian Gulf. The tanker Pacific Zircon was hit by an Iranian drone off the coast. Iran's navy captured a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iran's IRGC seized the Panamanian-flagged Niovi oil tanker.

The list goes on and on just year after year. I can list off dozens of these imminent what they have been doing in the Strait of Hormuz going on year after year, imminent. But, again my colleagues across the aisle, it is like they are getting hit in the face, and they are saying: No, nobody hit me. They are saying that because they want to talk a big game, but they are too scared to actually deal with somebody hitting them in the face. That is true about life.

Some people don't have the stomach to be soldiers. Some people have the stomach, but they are just not capable of doing it. Not everybody is built to do the same things.

I want to cover some of the other things that were said. My colleague, Ranking Member Meeks, said numerous times that the new leader of Iran is more extreme. That is certainly an acknowledgment of the extremist nature of the previous leader of Iran. Very extreme.

Having done all of those things that I just listed off to our allies and to the United States of America, that is how extreme the previous leader was, now the new one is more extreme. The previous one was absolutely an imminent threat, absolutely making this a legal military operation, though they continue to say it wasn't some legal operation, that it was a war of choice.

My colleague said it was a war of choice--I counted at least three times--in his remarks. Absolutely, it is a choice. If somebody hits me in the face like my colleagues are denying is happening to America, it is a choice whether we hit them back. My colleagues over there would prefer to choose that, when somebody hits America in the face, we say: No, nothing happened. I walked into a wall. Nothing to see here--and not hit them back.

That is not the United States of America.

It is a choice whether we hit back. Strong people choose to hit back. Strong countries choose to hit back. Weak people, weak countries, they don't hit back.

Let's go over some of the other things that were said. They regained access to missile sites. It was reported that Iran regained access to missile sites. Absolutely. You know what, they regained access probably 10 minutes after those sites were hit. That doesn't mean that they are operational. That doesn't mean that they can go into a cache where they held weapons and pull the weapons out of that cache and start using them. It doesn't mean that they can take a mobile platform that they could access before we hit it and then go access it again 10 minutes later and utilize it. Sure, they have access to it. That doesn't mean that it is something that can be used.

Our colleagues want you to believe that they had this access and nothing is being done. That is absolutely irresponsible.

I went over how my colleagues talked about how this war caused the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. No, Iran has been closing the Strait of Hormuz year after year, decade after decade, and I have far more pages of what I could go over of all the attacks that they have been conducting through the strait and other places.

It was said numerous times--again, I counted at least three times-- ``never in America's national interest.'' That is the colleague of Ranking Member Meeks over there, ``never in America's national interest.''

If it was never in America's national interest, why did my colleague literally vote to say the United States of America should ``use any and all means''--that is a quote, direct quote, from the bill--to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? That is what President Trump is doing, using any and all means to make sure that that doesn't happen.

In this breath, he says it was never in America's national interest, but before, I guess it was. I am not sure how before it was okay, but now it is never. It doesn't quite add up to me.

He said it is not about theatrics. If you voted previously to say use any and all means necessary against Iran, but now you say it is never in America's national interest, it is 100 percent about theatrics. That is what it is.

That is what this whole show is about for my colleagues over there. It is theatrics because you can't say it was never in America's national interest and just before that say, yes, I voted to say use any and all means necessary. They don't add up. One thing doesn't equal the other. It is all about theatrics.

On the words ``imminent threat,'' he said the words ``imminent threat'' are not in there. Yes, the words ``imminent threat'' are not directly in there. That is correct, but again, my colleague did state the ways that Iran is an imminent threat, my colleague who authored the legislation that they intend to vote ``yes'' on. They intend to vote ``yes'' outlining the ways that Iran was an imminent threat, even though they say it is not in our interests and all of these other things.

My colleague over there said that the sole objective of Iran is to wreak havoc--that equals imminent threat; create violence--equals imminent threat to me; cause instability; and cowardly murder U.S. servicemen and -women protecting our way of life. That sounds like a pretty damn big imminent threat to me.

It went on to say in the legislation: ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States.'' That sounds like an imminent threat. I know he didn't use the exact words, but sometimes you have to read between the lines, read between those lines.

``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 continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon.'' That is an imminent threat.

Again, I would say read between the lines. If you can't read between those lines, you probably don't have business working in the national security sphere.

Let's go over some other quotes that were said here.

They said that we have troops there. We have troops there, so the war is not over. The combat is not over.

Guess what, Ms. Clark. We have troops in Germany, but I can tell you that World War II--not World War 11, according to Ms. Omar--World War II is over, but we still have troops in Germany and still have troops in Europe. We had, previous to these operations against Iran, troops throughout the Middle East.

Just because we have troops there doesn't mean that this hasn't ended. It has ended since April 7, and I applaud President Trump for the cease-fire that he has negotiated and the peace that he continues to work toward.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I have more to talk about and go over more quotes here.

Ms. Clark said there is no strategy. I will tell you, she has been briefed numerous times, probably about 30 times, if she chose to attend all the classified briefings or was invited to all of them. I don't know which ones she was entirely invited to.

To say that there is no strategy is absolutely a direct insult to our United States Armed Forces, all of our generals, all of our colonels, all of our majors, all of our leaders working in tactical operations centers, the Pentagon, crunching data day in and day out, doing everything that they do to plan every single part of these operations: every time an aircraft takes off of a carrier; the targets that they are looking at; everything that they are looking to hit, when and in what order; what they have to hit before they go hit something further in the interior of Iran.

It is an insult to our military to say that there is no strategy. It takes away from every bit of strategy that is going on.

Let's keep going on.

My colleague Mr. Gottheimer, to quote him, said: I believe that we-- that they must be ``crushed.'' I agree with my colleague that they must be crushed. They have to be crushed. He wrote this legislation because of the imminent threat that Iran is. My colleague agreed with that.

Though my colleague, the ranking member over there, said that nobody could agree that it was an imminent threat, that Republicans couldn't prove it, there is at least one Democrat who agrees and was willing to see that through.

It is theatrics. It is theatrics that hurt our servicemembers.

There is probably only one thank-you that should be given, and that would be a thank-you from the IRGC to my colleagues over there for giving them hope. Without my colleagues over there, the IRGC would have zero hope.

Because they keep bringing forward ridiculous pieces of legislation like this, where they are unwilling to acknowledge the imminent threat that Iran is, all the attacks that have taken place against the United States of America, against our servicemembers, against our tankers, against our Navy vessels, against those of all of our allies, it continues to be theatrics because they won't see this. They are going to get hit in the face and deny that they ever got touched.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time in just one moment and simply say I urge a ``no'' vote on this because it is ridiculous and dangerous to say, especially in the midst of this cease-fire, of the negotiations for long-term peace, to prevent Iran from seeking a nuclear weapon in the future or seeking to continue their ballistic missile program or their drone program or their terror proxy programs or what they have been doing in the strait, that we even whisper the idea of pulling our servicemembers out of that area. It could not be more irresponsible of my colleagues to suggest that that take place.

They say they want negotiations. Those are taking place, but they want negotiations without the United States military protecting ships, knocking ordnance out of the sky, and being the very credible threat that the United States military is? That makes absolutely no sense.

Again, people that assess that way I do not want in the United States of America's national security decisionmaking tree.

I will say that I look forward to seeing that my colleagues over there vote ``yes,'' even though I recommend a ``no'' vote. Why? Because their ``yes'' vote literally shows just how much they agree that Iran is an imminent threat, even though they keep saying they are not, which directly leads to the legal justification for every operation that is taking place or has taken place against Iran.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source