Floor Statements

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable and often overlooked chapter in American sports. Thirty-five years ago, on April 14, 1991, the U.S. Women's Eagles won the inaugural Women's Rugby World Cup in Cardiff. They did so without the support or recognition that athletes expect today. They balanced full-time jobs, studies, and families, and paid their own way to compete.

During the tournament, they upset powerhouse New Zealand and beat England 19-6 in the final.

Their legacy is not just a trophy. It is proof that leadership often comes from those willing to challenge the status quo.

Today, women's rugby is one of the fastest growing sports. Across the U.S., women have opportunities to play at the highest levels because of this team's accomplishments.

These women were pioneers, and we owe them our gratitude and continued commitment to the athletes who carry their torch forward.

I am honored that members of the team have joined us in Washington today to celebrate this incredible milestone.

I congratulate the Eagles. America is proud of them.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present on January 9, 2026. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 12.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of Gloucester, Massachusetts, America's oldest seaport, I am proud to lead this critical bill to reauthorize the Young Fishermen's Development Grant Program for another 5 years.

This national competitive grant program supports the training and education of the Nation's next generation of commercial fishermen. Commercial fishing is at the heart of Massachusetts's identity and economy, but this legacy will not endure if we don't help the next generation get started.

These grants help the industry expand and evolve. I am proud that this money will give new opportunities to young people who are interested in working at sea and supplying our communities with fresh seafood, so we don't buy it all from unregulated fisheries overseas.

This bill has been renamed the Captain Accursio ``Gus'' Sanfilippo Young Fishermen's Development Act in honor of the captain of the fishing vessel Lily Jean.

Under this program, young fishermen across New England have received critical vocational training to enter the industry, develop into competitive deckhands, and transition to the wheelhouse as captains like Gus.

I thank Congressman Nicholas Begich from Alaska for partnering on this effort and making this a strong bipartisan bill. I am proud to lead the effort with him to keep this vital program funded every year. I also thank Representatives Tokuda, Radewagen, and Golden for their partnership.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Gus. On January 30, 2026, the 72-foot fishing vessel Lily Jean sank roughly 25 miles off Gloucester, Massachusetts. Tragically, all seven crewmembers, including Captain Sanfilippo, were lost.

Gus hailed from a family of fishermen and first learned the ropes of the industry from his father, Antonino, a Sicilian immigrant who owned the St. George II. Under his father's guidance, he developed the values of hard work and perseverance and a deep respect for the sea.

The lessons Antonino taught Gus remained with him throughout his life. He later purchased his own fishing vessel, the Lily Jean, named after his daughter, and carried forth his family's legacy as the next generation of Sanfilippos to fish commercially.

With his beloved wife, Lorie, Gus had two children, Lily Jean and Anthony. An adoring husband and father, he was also a father figure at sea. Captain Sanfilippo mentored countless young men and women who joined his crew. He enjoyed teaching them essential skills such as net mending, electronics, navigation, and vessel maintenance. Most importantly, he stressed the value of teamwork and looking out for one another on the open ocean.

Captain Sanfilippo took young workers under his wing, showing them not only how to succeed in the industry but how to carry themselves with responsibility and courage. He ran a tight ship, valuing rules, structure, and safety. He took great pride in his role as captain and was, above all else, courageous and selfless.

Captain Sanfilippo is currently being considered posthumously for a Mariner's Medal in recognition of his historic rescues of multiple fishing vessels in distress.

As a father, he led by example with kindness, patience, steady guidance, integrity, and a generous heart. As a captain, he shared the same values with the young members of his crew.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rename the Young Fishermen's Development Act on behalf of Captain Accursio ``Gus'' Sanfilippo.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present on February 9, 2026. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 57.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and in somber recognition of the seven courageous members of the Lily Jean, who were lost at sea when the 72-foot groundfish trawler sank in the frigid waters off Gloucester, Massachusetts, last Friday.

For more than 400 years, Gloucester fishermen have braved the Atlantic to feed our Nation. Fishing is not just an industry in Gloucester; it is the backbone of the community, woven into families, neighborhoods, and generations through shared sacrifice.

Today, the Gloucester community and the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts mourn the loss of Captain Accursio ``Gus'' Sanfilippo, his crew, and an NOAA observer. In a town where everyone knows someone who fishes, a tragedy like this is felt in every home, on every dock, and along every wharf.

Captain Sanfilippo was a fifth-generation commercial fisherman, a veteran of the sea, and a mentor to young fishermen just starting out. He took countless aspiring fishermen under his wing, sharing not just his knowledge, but his love for the water and the traditions of the trade.

Deckhands Paul Beal, Sr., and Jr. also understood that fishing is not simply a job, but a calling passed down through generations. Paul,Sr. began fishing while still in high school and shared that passion with his son, working side by side on the water.

We also remember crew members John Paul Rousanidis, Sean Therrien, and Freeman Short, men lauded for their hard work, commitment to family, and generosity to others. Finally, we honor Jada Sammitt, a recent college graduate serving as an NOAA federal observer, who chose public service and scientific stewardship as her calling.

While the Lily Jean's dedicated crew could not be saved, we owe our deepest gratitude to the U.S. Coast Guard for their relentless efforts, searching more than 1,000 square miles using aircraft, cutters, and small boats. Their sense of duty is profound, and we know they too carry the weight of this tremendous loss.

While nothing can bring Captain Gus and the crew of the Lily Jean back to their families and communities, we owe it to them, and to every fisherman who heads out before dawn, to ensure that this vital and dangerous work is respected, valued, and supported.

Fishing is not just an occupation. It is a way of life, built on hard work, risk, and an enduring love for the sea. Fishermen often say they have salt in their blood. The love we have for our Gloucester fishermen runs deep in our hearts too.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the crew of the Lily Jean, and we stand with the entire Gloucester community as they grieve this loss during this heartbreaking time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and in somber recognition of the seven crew members of the Lily Jean who were lost at sea when their trawler sank off the coast of Gloucester, Massachusetts last Friday.

The Gloucester community and the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts mourn the loss of Captain Accursio, Gus Sanfilippo, his crew, and a NOAA observer.

Captain Gus was more than just a seasoned mariner. He was a mentor, a leader, and beloved figure in the Gloucester fishing community.

We also remember John Paul Rousanidis, Sean Therrien, Freeman Short, and Jada Samitt, a young Federal observer just starting her career.

We also think of their families who, devastated today, live with the constant anxiety that comes with having loved ones away at sea.

We also extend our deepest gratitude to the U.S. Coast Guard for their relentless efforts, searching more than 1,000 square miles to try to find the crew.

Fishing is not just an occupation. It is a way of life built on the hard work, risk, and enduring love for the sea. Fishermen often say they have salt in their blood.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the crew of the Lily Jean, and we stand with the entire Gloucester community during this heartbreaking time.

I want to also remember deckhands Paul Beal Sr., and Jr., who understood that fishing is not simply a job, but a calling passed down through generations.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 333 and NAY on Roll Call No. 334.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present on November 20, 2025. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 303 and NAY on Roll Call No. 304.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome His All-Holiness Bartholomew to Washington, D.C.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of over 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. Since 1991, he has served as the Archbishop of Constantinople--New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, a role that traces its lineage to the earliest days of Christianity. As the ``first among equals'' among Orthodox Christian leaders, he has been a central figure in promoting unity within Orthodoxy, religious freedom globally, and constructive dialogue among faiths.

Born on the island of Imvros, the Ecumenical Patriarch has spent his life in service to both faith and humanity. He is internationally recognized for his efforts to protect the environment--earning the nickname ``the Green Patriarch''--as well as for his work in advancing human rights, reconciliation among faiths, and support for religious communities living under persecution.

He has been welcomed by presidents and prime ministers around the world, addressed the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress, and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1997. In September 2025, he will return to the United States to receive the Templeton Prize--the world's most distinguished award at the intersection of faith and science.

This visit is especially meaningful to the many Greek Orthodox Americans in Massachusetts and in my district. From churches in Lynn, Peabody, and Salem, to communities across the Commonwealth, Greek Americans have contributed profoundly to the civic, cultural, and spiritual fabric of our state. The Ecumenical Patriarch's visit is a source of deep pride for many of my constituents and a reminder of the enduring connection between our country and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Once again, I welcome Ecumenical Patriarch to Washington and in honoring his decades of global leadership, his commitment to peace and human dignity, and his enduring contributions to our shared moral and spiritual life.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize my friend, Father Shaughnessy.

I was at a marine reunion this weekend, and we heard remarkable stories of heroism from ordinary Americans who signed up for the Marine Corps, who did heroic things. There were a lot of stories about marines. There were stories about one civilian who was with us in the fight, who, as we were getting hit with incoming rounds, would walk thoughtlessly amongst us to give us comfort. When marines were getting

hit, he didn't seem to care. One marine told a story of him showing up on a stack of marines going into a room, and the marine turned around and said: Father, you probably shouldn't be right here.

Father Shaughnessy never met a marine who didn't respect him, just like he never met an R he could pronounce. Yes, every time he opened his mouth, we knew he was from Worcester, Massachusetts. What he said with his words inspired courage in all of us.

Father Shaughnessy is a friend. He is a leader, and he is an American hero.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, I voted NAY but intended to vote YEA on Roll Call No. 163.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation, especially my good friend and workout buddy from Arkansas.

I urge support for my bill, H.R. 2215, the Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act. Salem Maritime was established in 1938 as the Nation's first national historic site. It has spent the ensuing 87 years preserving and interpreting over 600 years of American history. This redesignation is overdue.

National historic sites tend to contain a single historical feature and focus on one theme or period of time, but the Salem Maritime National Historic Site contains a dozen historical structures across nine acres. These sites preserve and share diverse histories, ranging from early American maritime trade to slavery and emancipation to the creation of the National Guard.

In many ways, Salem's history is our Nation's history. Take, for example, the Salem Gunpowder Raid of 1775, which was the first armed resistance to the Royal authority, laying the groundwork for the Battles of Lexington and Concord and, later, the American Revolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is history that our children and our communities should learn. The Salem Maritime National Historic Park does that critical work.

This redesignation will also help to bring more visitors to Salem, including to the city's many small businesses, promoting year-round stability in a city that receives a third of its tourism revenue in 1 month.

As America's 250th anniversary approaches, we should expand Salem Maritime's capacity to share our region's rich history with visitors from across Massachusetts and the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 2215.