Resolution, to Remove United States Armed Forces From Hostilities with Iran
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. I didn't say ``evil.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. I didn't say ``evil.'' Did I say ``evil''? I agree they are evil, but I didn't say that. Let's not twist the words.
I didn't say ``evil.'' You are still saying things I didn't say. I read what you voted for last week: Iran wants to attack the United States--``wants to attack'' means imminent--and our allies with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. I will give you a moment of time in a second.
He voted to say any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We could go on and on about these things.
Are they an imminent threat?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. They are certainly not.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. What I would give you is this, to present, again, imminence of them. I just gave you some examples. We will say just before this began in February, they attacked a U.S.-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that, they attacked--IRGC, I am talking about when I say ``they.'' They attacked another oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that--I am in December now--attacked another one. Just before that, IRGC attacked one in the Marshall Islands. Just before that, IRGC attacked an MSC ship and raided with a helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. I have pages and pages of these. It is the definition of ``imminent.''
As you know, before that, they killed three Americans at Tower 22 in Jordan. It is imminent.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. They attacked us literally just before our operations began. I gave you one example. To me, being a servicemember, if I see a foxhole and one or two enemies in that foxhole with the barrel of a .50-cal pointed at me, just because they don't have two fingers on the trigger playing with that trigger doesn't mean that it is not an imminent threat. If they are aiming it at me, that is an imminent threat. They are aiming it at us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Thankfully, we have had a cease-fire since, I want to say the date was April 7, April 8. We are not in hostilities. We are out there with almost the exact same number of forces that we continually keep in the region.
It brings me to another question I would love to ask you as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, because the bill literally calls for the removal of U.S. forces from the region, other than those that ``may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.'' That is what the bill says you are voting on today--probably, you will vote for it. I would love to know which military assets you would like to remove.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. We are paused. We are in a cease-fire.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. That is what a cease-fire is. It is an end to that.
Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, and I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there is still an argument from my colleagues over there about imminent threat, imminent threat, whether it is an imminent threat. I will just give them one other important piece of information they might want for the debate that was just so passionately spoken about.
Before Epic Fury began, 30 months--the 30 months within, not 30 months just beyond that--30 months within Epic Fury, that time before it, there were 350 attacks against the United States of America. That is not just imminent. That is continuous.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask how my colleagues on the other side to not equate continuous with imminence.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have probably, I don't know, maybe 100 people up in the gallery behind us. I am going to apologize to the people behind us. They came here to the Capitol of the United States of America to hear debate, but they witnessed my colleagues over here don't really want to debate.
I am always willing to give them time if they actually want to have a debate, argue facts, talk about things, but they rarely--as you all witnessed, they don't want to take my time to answer questions.
The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had a little back and forth with me for a little while. I appreciated it. I asked him very direct questions. Does continuous attacks against the United States of America equal an imminent threat. They just gloss by that as though they have nothing to do with the national security of the United States of America. They didn't want to talk about it.
You are owed more than that. This is what debate is. I constantly offer them the time. They don't want to answer the questions. It is because this is all political for them. This is political. That is why they don't want to answer why they voted not too long ago to say use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. They all over there voted for that.
None of them can explain today why they don't want to use any and all means necessary, but before, that was the case. It is not convenient. It is not politically convenient for them to do that.
My colleagues over here said it is a war of choice. Yes, it is a choice. As Americans, we make a choice. If somebody hits us day after day, week after week, month after month, do we just keep getting hit, or do we hit back? That is a choice.
I can tell you, as an American servicemember, an American fighter, if somebody hits me, kills my people, I am going to hit them back.
Yes, I hate high energy prices, but not as much as I hate people who kill Americans. I hate them, but not as much as I hate those that kill my people.
Iran kills our people consistently, attacks our people consistently, and wants to seek the means to do that with a nuclear weapon. They all agreed on it prior to President Trump doing something about it. They don't want to have a debate about that.
No matter how it comes down in the end, they don't want to actually talk about the real things that are going on. They don't want to talk about the troop levels over there that are basically the same thing that they were before this conflict even began. These are things they don't like to discuss.
Again, you weren't all here in the audience a week ago when we were debating this before, but as I mentioned earlier, they all voted to say the ways that Iran is a nuclear threat: They want to attack the United States of America. They want to attack us with ballistic missiles, with terrorist proxies. They want to obtain a nuclear weapon and use that against us.
They all voted to say that a week ago.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I will keep that in mind.
They all voted to say that, that this is the way that Iran is a nuclear--that they are an imminent threat. They won't use the words ``imminent threat,'' though, because to use the words ``imminent threat'' has some specific legal connotation to it. They know it is bad for them. They don't want to do it. It is political, too political.
It would be like I have a cough, a fever, cold sweats, but I am unwilling to say that I have the flu. They are not willing to say it. They are not willing to acknowledge what is.
People in the audience, people watching, you are owed more than that out of those who are debating national security.
I mentioned already that before Operation Epic Fury began, in the 30 months prior to it beginning: 350 attacks in 30 months. They are not willing to say that that is ``imminent.''
Examples include U.S.-flagged tankers, and Iranian forces seize Greek-flagged tanker. There was the tanker Pacific Zircon, off the coast of Oman. Iranian Navy captures Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iranian IRGC seizes Panamanian tanker. IRGC seize Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. The list goes on and on, week in and week out. There was an American tanker, a tanker from another country, putting U.S. sailors on their knees on a U.S. vessel, if everybody remembers that.
I am an American. I don't believe in getting hit and walking away and pretending as though it didn't happen. I would like to think that all Americans were the same way, but I know that is not the case. There are very few that serve in the United States military, and probably even less that are capable of it, because not everybody reacts to conflict in the same way or has the same desire to deal with it.
My colleagues over here who are voting for this are the kind of Americans that get hit and pretend as though it never happened.
If you want America to get hit and pretend as though it never happened, then vote with my colleagues over there.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source