Seth Moulton

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to briefly respond to the remarks from my colleague from Florida.

The gentleman from Florida has asked two basic questions. The first is: Is Iran a threat?

The second is: What troops or materiel should be removed?

There is actually a very simple answer. He answered the first one himself by quoting me when I have in the past many times said that Iran is a serious threat.

The second question: What should be removed? Also has a very simple answer. We should remove the troops and materiel that are going towards a war that has not only failed but backfired. These are troops and materiel that are depleting resources needed elsewhere in the globe. That is a very simple answer to the gentleman's question, which I will be happy to detail later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida delivered a comprehensive list of many of the threats that Iran has presented to us in the past. I have not heard any Democrat, myself or otherwise, debate those threats.

The question is: Is Iran a threat today? I think my colleague would agree that they are.

The second question is: Is Iran more of a threat today than they were before this war began? I think anyone with common sense would agree that they are.

Never before has Iran controlled the world economy, brought the world economy to its heels, by closing the Strait of Hormuz as a result of this war not only failing but backfiring.

If we are serious about the threat, then we ought to have a serious strategy to address it. We ought to have a strategy that actually works, whereas this strategy has failed.

I stand here today with my colleagues to do what Congress failed to do for us and our brothers- and sisters-in-arms in Iraq two decades ago: to actually ask tough questions as the Constitution directs us to do--rather than be subservient to another war-mongering administration--and then have the courage to vote to end a war that should never have begun.

I joined over 100,000 other young Americans 23 years ago in invading Iraq in the spring, and we came home to a victory parade in the fall, a victory parade not long after President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared: Mission Accomplished.

We all know it wasn't a victory in 2003, far from it. We were still fighting that Middle Eastern war 20 years later. Mr. Speaker, 4,492 U.S. servicemembers were killed in Iraq, and 32,292 were wounded. Iraq civilian casualties stretched into the hundreds of thousands.

Congress failed to ask the most basic question it owed those families: Was this worth it? It is the same question we are failing to ask today, Mr. Speaker.

That is the price of a war that Congress refused to stop. It is a price that Republicans in Congress are choosing right now to let another generation start paying.

Our President declares victory a couple of times a week--well over 30 times so far--and doesn't dare to try to land a plane on an aircraft carrier to do so. Our carriers can't even land themselves in ports for resupply because our allied ports are now in too much danger of an Iranian attack. We have made our allied ports less safe in the very Gulf where we are fighting this war.

What a remarkably dumb war--dumb. Dumb, you say? Well, let's discuss for a minute what this war has achieved--not using independent metrics, not Democratic metrics, but the very metrics the President has used since day one.

We will start with oil. Well, oil prices are up. We are all paying more at the pump and more in the stores for goods shipped with oil. Good for Iran. Bad for us.

Iran's nuclear program is still intact. In fact, it is more than intact since the President just started talking about yet more strikes against a nuclear program that he and Secretary Hegseth said was obliterated. They were lying, or Iran is rebuilding. Either way: Good for Iran. Bad for us.

Of course, we don't know as much detail on their nuclear program as we once did when we had weapons inspectors and 24/7 electronic monitoring in Iran under President Obama. Trump got rid of those safeguards. Good for Iran. Bad for us.

What about projecting power? We hear a lot about Iran projecting power and what a problem this is in the Middle East and even right here at home, where, as my colleague mentioned, Iran is trying to assassinate officials--officials that the President removed protection from as if to encourage Iran. This measure is truly remarkable because Iran is projecting more power than Iran has ever projected in the history of the world. Never before has the Islamic republic singlehandedly leveraged the entire world economy. Another thing good for Iran; bad for us.

What about ballistic missiles? We were told their ballistic missiles were eliminated. It only took about $30 billion of our American taxpayer dollars to supposedly do so. Then we learned a matter of weeks later that they still have a lot of missiles and are recovering more. We haven't even begun to talk about the drones that have inflicted more damage than their missiles.

Here is the real kicker. While we were bombing their missiles with only moderate effectiveness, President Trump actually lifted the sanctions on Iran--lifted the sanctions on our adversary that they have admitted is a serious threat to the United States in the middle of a war. They kill a bunch of Americans, and we lift the sanctions? That is quite a strategy.

That alone gave Iran a gift of about $10 billion. Well, you know what? You can buy a lot of ballistic missiles for $10 billion. You don't even need to worry about your industrial base. In fact, you can buy Russian or Chinese ballistic missiles that are more sophisticated than what Iran already has. Yet again: Good for Iran. Bad for us.

Of course, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. A reminder: The strait was open, and has been open in the entire history of the Islamic Republic, before Trump declared victory. It is truly remarkable. Good for Iran; bad for us.

What about their navy? We supposedly obliterated that, too. Yet, we can't open the strait. Any allied tankers require heavy naval escorts, and no art of the deal has gotten Iran to budge.

Any military planner, had the administration asked a single one of them, would have told you Iran could close the strait. It is still effectively closed. Good for Iran; bad for us.

How about their air defenses? We obliterated those, too, shortly before Iran shot down one of our Apache helicopters. Over two decades in Afghanistan, a war my colleague knows well and for which he has seriously sacrificed, and not a single Apache was shot down. Yet, after we supposedly obliterated their air defenses, we lose one to Iran. Good for Iran; bad for us.

What about regime change? That was the stated objective of the President from day one. Now, I want to be a fair arbiter, as we all should in Congress. So on this one count I will give the administration credit. They did achieve regime change. They took out an 86-year-old religious zealot in failing health, who had a fatwa against producing nuclear weapons, and replaced him with someone in his fifties, who is apparently even more committed to their nuclear program, alongside a military government that so far seems more effective than the religious government it replaced. So Trump got regime change. It has just been good for Iran; bad for us.

All of this translates to one sad, embarrassing but unavoidable conclusion: Iran is winning, and America is losing. We didn't get rid of the threat. We empowered it. If that is not dumb, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is.

Remember when Donald Trump said this war would last just a few weeks? Well, it has been over 6 months and counting.

In April, Pete Hegseth stood at a podium and proudly declared a capital V military victory. He said the United States had achieved every single objective. He said that America's objectives were unchanged, on target, and on plan. Yet, as I have just detailed, it seems like we have achieved Iran's objectives quite effectively for them.

Those were Hegseth's terms. He declared victory on them. Really? Well, here's a question for Secretary Hegseth and for every Republican who has taken his word for it since: If we already won, then why is Iran still in control of the Strait of Hormuz? If we already won, why are gas prices still climbing? Why are diesel prices at historic highs, the highest ever? What an achievement.

If we already won, why are our troops still getting hurt 6 months after Hegseth stood up before the American people and declared this victory was won?

If we already won, why does Iran's nuclear program still exist? Compare the state of Iran's nuclear program today to what President Obama achieved with the Iran nuclear deal. Ninety-eight percent of Iran's uranium stockpile was gone. Enrichment was capped at a level so low that it could not be weaponized. The Strait of Hormuz was open, and zero American troops were killed and zero were wounded. All that, and no war was required.

All of this losing that Trump and Hegseth have been doing comes at a tremendous cost: 18 U.S. servicemembers killed.

At $100 billion and counting, that translates to an additional $602 for every American taxpayer on average. How many Americans, how many constituents of mine or the Congressman from Florida, want to be paying $602 in taxpayer money to lose a war in Iran?

Now, I am saying all this standing here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, how about we stand up for our troops and our citizens for a change rather than perpetuating a war that, by all these measures, on the administration's own terms, is good for Iran and bad for us?

I think it is time to get some common sense, stop taking Trump and Hegseth at their word, find the courage to follow the Constitution and act as our own branch of government, end this war before it gets worse, and stop doing more for Iran than we are doing for us.

Our job is to help America, Mr. Speaker, not help Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will respond briefly to my colleague from Florida. My colleague has made a very convincing case, Mr. Speaker, for why we ought to have a strategy or use means necessary to actually defeat the threat from Iran, not a strategy that has backfired and empowered them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I detailed how on so many counts--oil, nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and regime change that we are worse off today than we were when this war started, but I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing up another one, which is insurance rates.

I ask my colleague: Are insurance rates higher or lower to go through the Strait of Hormuz today than they were 5, 10, or 50 years ago? Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, it is worse.

Then my colleague said, well, that is why we need to end this forever war. How is that going? What are we up to, 40 times that President Trump has said the war is ending. I would like to see the day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, before my colleague launched into a Westmoreland-like list of targets, which has nothing to do with whether or not we are actually winning this war, he talked about the President having the stomach to go to war, maybe the stomach to end it.

I would ask my colleague, who is the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, when we are going to find the stomach in Congress to just hold a hearing on this war? That shouldn't be a very high bar. Yet, the chairman hasn't reached it.

Why is it that the Republicans in Congress will literally cancel votes before they have a vote on the most important responsibility that we have?

If the end is truly in sight for this war, then why, as I have detailed on every single measure, is it getting worse and the threat is increasing?

Yes, Iran has been a threat for a really long time, and that is why we should have a strategy that ends the threat, not further empowers Iran.

Yes, Americans have been killed in the past by Iran. The question is will more Americans be killed in the future? I think we all know, sadly, what that answer is today.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution delegates to Congress no more important responsibility than deciding when to send the best of America, our young Americans, to war--decisions that make our families more or less safe here at home.

The unmistakable conclusion of this debate is that Iran is sadly better off today, more empowered today than they were before this began, this unconstitutional, illegal, dumb war that has truly not just failed but backfired. Doubling down with wars escalating follows the precedent set by other forever wars in the Middle East.

We haven't even talked about the greatest threat in the world today, which is not Iran, but Xi Jinping in China. As we take more and more assets away from deterring China, away from deterring Russia, which is inching closer and closer to starting a war with NATO in Europe, it is a gift to Putin and Xi Jinping, a gift.

This war has been a tactical failure and a strategic disaster. We are not better off than we were before, and that is why we need to bring it to an end.

But, most fundamentally, we ought to have the courage or, as my colleague says, the stomach to debate it, to talk about it, to not continually try to put off these votes, but to have the courage to vote on these resolutions for the American people, the constituents that we represent, and then go home and ask them--constituents in Florida, constituents in Massachusetts, and military families all across the world--whether this is worth it, whether a war that we are losing is worth their sacrifice, worth their taxpayer dollars.

Let's have the courage to take that vote and then answer to our constituents, because our troops, our families, and the American citizens deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, part of our job in Congress is to answer tough questions. When the people have tough questions, they deserve honest answers.

The toughest question I have ever received in my life is not here in Congress but in Iraq from an 18-year-old lance corporal, who simply asked: Sir, why am I risking my life for this?

There are a lot of young Americans, the best of the best, those few brave enough to put their lives on the line for our country and for all of us here, who are asking that question today. Why am I risking my life for this?

They are asking that question today as they fight and die in a war Trump did not need to start, a war that he is not winning, a war that has made Iran more dangerous, not less, and a war that is costing every American back home, though none more so than the American heroes and their families who have already made the ultimate sacrifice for this folly.

As of this past weekend, the casualty toll from the war has risen to 18. There are 18 Americans dead in a war that Congress never voted to authorize. In addition to the heroes we have already lost in this war prior to this weekend, we now mourn the lives of Private Isabella Gonzales, First Lieutenant James Feehan, Sergeant Angel Rampersad, and Sergeant Michael Emmanuel Swinton.

When the military commander in charge of this operation came before the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him: How many more Americans have to die for this mistake? He refused to answer, just as Trump and his henchman Hegseth have refused to take any responsibility, any accountability for this massive failure of a war, for losing this war to Iran.

Yes, part of our job in Congress is to answer tough questions, though it is easier here than out there in the Middle East.

Part of our job is also to ask tough questions, tough questions of this administration before it kills more Americans in this mistake. Too many of our colleagues refuse to do so.

Thankfully, a large number of Democratic veterans do not. We are asking these tough questions of the administration on behalf of the American people and on behalf of our troops. They all demand answers.

That is why we have demanded this vote. It is long past time for a plan, we are long overdue for accountability, and we are tired of the President losing this war and making it worse for our troops and for everyone here at home.

Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough of the President's war in Iran that has been an utter disaster for everyone except Iran and maybe China. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary service and enduring legacy of Brigadier General John Glover of Massachusetts, one of the indispensable military leaders of the American Revolutionary War, and to call attention to the urgent need to preserve General Glover's historic farmhouse in Swampscott, Massachusetts.

Before the Revolution, John Glover was a merchant, mariner, and civic-minded citizen of Marblehead whose life reflected industry, modesty, and devotion to community. During the struggle for independence, he became one of General George Washington's most trusted and indispensable officers. Through courage, discipline, and unmatched maritime skill, General Glover helped secure the survival of the Continental Army and thereby the cause of American liberty itself.

General Glover commanded the famed Marblehead Regiment, often known as the ``Marblehead Mariners,'' a force composed largely of fishermen, sailors, and tradesmen drawn from the port community of Marblehead. At a time when prejudice and rigid social divisions characterized much of colonial society, Glover organized and led a regiment in which men of differing racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds served together in a common cause. Contemporary accounts reflect that African Americans and indigenous Americans served alongside men of European ancestry within his command. Glover valued seamanship, discipline, courage, and technical competence above social standing or background, establishing a model of unity in service that was far ahead of its time.

General Glover's military achievements altered the course of the Revolutionary War. Following the disastrous Battle of Long Island in August 1776, it was Glover and his Marblehead Mariners whose skill and discipline enabled General Washington and the Continental Army to escape across the East River under cover of darkness, preserving the American cause at one of its gravest moments. Just months later, on Christmas night of 1776, Glover and his regiment again changed history by ferrying Washington's forces across the ice-filled Delaware River, enabling the successful surprise attack at Trenton that revived the hopes of the Revolution.

Glover's service extended far beyond these celebrated moments. He played a critical role in the Saratoga campaign, served with distinction at Rhode Island and Valley Forge, and supervised the construction of strategic fortifications in New York at General Washington's direction. Equally significant was Glover's pioneering integration of maritime and land operations. His coordination of troop movement, logistics, navigation, amphibious maneuver, and naval support anticipated the modern doctrine of joint military operations employed by the Armed Forces of the United States today.

General Glover's contributions to American naval development were profound. In 1775, he outfitted vessels for privateering against British shipping, and General Washington chartered Glover's schooner Hannah, which many historians regard as the first armed vessel of what became the Continental Navy. Through his strategic understanding of waterways and amphibious warfare, Glover established principles that would later become foundational to American naval and Marine Corps operations.

General Glover also demonstrated devotion to the welfare of his community before and during the Revolution. In the years preceding independence, he and his brother helped establish an inoculation hospital on what is now Children's Island to combat the spread of smallpox and protect the people of their region.

Despite these extraordinary contributions to the founding of the United States, the farmhouse to which General Glover retired after his service now faces the danger of demolition. This historic structure stands not merely as a building, but as a tangible connection to one of the architects of American independence and to the ideals of unity, courage, and innovation that shaped our Nation.

The preservation of General Glover's farmhouse would honor not only one man, but also the diverse regiment he led and the enduring American principle that achievement and patriotism transcend race, class, and creed. Future generations deserve the opportunity to learn from this legacy and to understand how leadership, sacrifice, and cooperation helped secure the liberties we cherish today.

Accordingly, I urge all interested parties, preservation organizations, public officials, and citizens to work together to preserve the Glover farmhouse as a permanent historic memorial to Brigadier General John Glover and the Marblehead Mariners. The legacy of John Glover is inseparable from the legacy of the United States itself, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that this chapter of American history is neither forgotten nor destroyed, especially this year.