Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank our outstanding teachers of Collier County, Florida, and to recognize their hard work and dedication to our community.

Teaching may be the most challenging, yet most important, profession in our country. Teachers inspire, mentor, and motivate our children to succeed. Every one of us undoubtedly has had a teacher in our life that shaped us into who we are today. We are deeply thankful for our dedicated teachers who so greatly impact our young people and the future of our communities.

I want to congratulate the following teachers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and who will be recognized at the annual Golden Apple Celebration of Teachers Dinner tomorrow night. Myra Janco Daniels will be awarded the Heart of the Apple for her devotion to education. Joanna Campanile, Anne Fredette, Ashley Lynn Heirls, Maria LaRocco, Janell Matos, Amanda McCoy and Stacy Smith are recipients of the Golden Apple. Tara Barr, Staci Haralson Barretta, Steven Becker, Brandon Carter, Kristin Downs, Susan Ellard, Staci Fisher, Sabrina Kovacs, John Krupp, Veronica Mamone, Kyle Manders, Kristin Merrill, Joseph Merrill, Dawn Peck, Lindsey Sebela, Christina Svec, Aaron Thayer, Marisa Vessella and Amity Wyss were named Teachers of Distinction.

These teachers truly make a difference in their students' lives and I am thankful for the positive impact they have on our community

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues several more articles that I have written over the years regarding the Holy See. As a Member of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, these pieces serve to outline and inform discussions that our Committee will cover in the 115th Congress.

religion and democracy: the emerging diplomacy of pope benedict xvi

While many Americans only see him as a spiritual leader of

Roman Catholics, the Pope exerts an often subtle but

undeniable influence in international affairs. The Pope is

the final authority of the Holy See, which derives its name

from ``seat'' in Latin and signifies the repository of

authority and direction over the organization and affairs of

the Church. As an institution and sovereign, the Holy See is

the ``oldest diplomatic entity in the world.''

During the two World Wars, Popes Benedict XV and Pius XII

boldly promoted peace without preconditions. The jovial Pope

John XXIII and more reserved Pope Paul VI implemented the

Vatican II reforms. The unforgettable legacy of John Paul II,

the Polish Pope, is his unswerving opposition to communism.

The current Pope Benedict XVI, formerly known as Cardinal

Joseph Ratzinger, continues the diplomatic tradition of the

Holy See aimed at salvaging faith in some parts of the world

and promoting reason in others.

While Benedict XVI is often characterized as being less

media-centric and charismatic than his predecessor, Pope John

Paul II, he demonstrated remarkable strategic focus and

clarity in his papal visit to the United Kingdom, September

16-20, 2010. His spirit of goodwill enabled him to overcome

vocal and hostile opposition to the visit and, as a result,

this visit will likely be remembered as a defining moment for

the diplomacy of the Holy See.

In his in-flight press conference, the Pope made it clear

that he wasn't willing to compromise or soften his outreach,

saying that

``a Church that seeks to be particularly attractive is

already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work

for her own ends, she does not work to increase numbers and

thus power.'' Free of constraints of political correctness or

hegemonic aspirations, the Holy See has often exhibited a

unique clarity and honesty in its discourse. The visit to the

United Kingdom was no exception.

During the same press conference, the Pope expressed his

gratitude towards Queen Elizabeth for elevating the trip to

the level of a state visit. The Pope said that the visit

reflected the ``common responsibility of politics and

religion for the future of the continent and the future of

humanity: the large, shared responsibility so that the values

that create justice and politics and which come from

religion, share the journey in our time.'' This is a

universal message, not just intended for Britons but also for

a global audience.

There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the

Pope's trip. Notable antireligious personalities, such as

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, called for the

British authorities to arrest the Pope immediately upon his

arrival due to their opinion that the Church had criminally

enabled child abuse. The Guardian opposed the visit and

accused the Holy See of increasing the number of impoverished

families and of the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa by its

position on the use of condoms. As George Weigel has pointed

out in a December 2010 essay, ``Fail, Britannia,'' even the

Catholic left was seduced to some degree by the intense

criticisms. For example, Sir Stephen Wall, an advisor to the

Diocese of Westminster and to Prime Minister Tony Blair,

wrote that ``individuals have their own values . . . changing

moral code is a normal part of social evolution.''

All of this controversy allowed the Pope to draw the

clearest comparisons yet in his five year papacy between the

state of affairs in the modern world today and aspirations

for a more fully human order. During the UK trip, the Pope

succeeded in articulating two critical challenges: (1) the

risk of an increasing marginalization of religion--

encapsulated in the phrase, ``dictatorship of relativism,''

and (2) the need for combining and rationally accommodating

both reason and religion in the modern world. The fact that

two-thirds of all papal visits to date have been to Europe

certainly reinforces the Pontiff's hopes for the re-

evangelization of Europe.

In his address to diplomatic, business and academic leaders

at Westminster Hall, the Pope laid out the case for the

coexistence of religion and politics. ``Britain has emerged

as a pluralist democracy which places great value on freedom

of speech . . . with a strong sense of the individual's

rights and duties.'' He also said that such a stance squares

with Catholic social teaching and ``its overriding concern to

safeguard the unique dignity of every person . . . and in its

emphasis on the duty of civil authority to foster the common

good.'' Contrary to the critics of his visit, the Pope showed

that a platform for good government and justice is created by

mutually reinforced reason and faith.

These concepts are linked to Vatican II (1962-1965), which

was a turning point for the evolution of Church relations in

the world, building upon past traditions and policies while

finding new approaches with which to confront the global

realities of the 1960s. This human dignity and the essential,

inherent rights of man as demonstrated in its most

significant pronouncements, specifically Pacem in Terris,

Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae.

Benedict's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, had witnessed a

Holy See diplomacy reacting to a different set of world

challenges. Shaped by a different personal background, he

applied these same principles in his diplomacy. His entire

lifetime of experiences drove him, along with President

Ronald Reagan, to focus on the evils of communism. In his

address to the United Nations on October 3, 1979, Pope John

Paul II ``gave a speech in defense of basic human rights that

left the delegates from communist countries worried'' wherein

he said that politics must begin with ``a proper

understanding of the dignity of the human person'' and that

respect for human rights was ``the prerequisite to true

peace.'' Elaborating his message further, John Paul II told

an audience of scientists in 2000 that ``faith is not afraid

of reason'' because they ``are like two wings on which the

human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.''

These two examples illustrate the continuity of thought of

Holy See diplomacy and the important symmetries between two

``modern'' popes, often less recognized than their

differences. More open to inter-religious and pluralistic,

democratic process, these two popes have done much to foster

the dialogue about the place of religion in democracy.

culture, and the political morality of society.

religion and democracy

President Richard Nixon, a staunch anti-communist, was

capable of rapprochement with China at a time when opposition

to such an outreach was strong. While not exactly analogous

and on an entirely different plane, an unstintingly

conservative Pope has been able to actively engage

nonbelievers and the most secular of peoples in robust

dialogue. Cardinal Ratzinger honed his intellectual arguments

in several publications and has become a leader for

theologians. Just over a year before he was elected pope,

then Cardinal Ratzinger worked with the noted neo-socialist

Jurgen Habermas to write a series of essays in the book, The

Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion. This is

the same person who spoke out against the ``dictatorship of

relativism'' in the 2005 conclave that elected him. This Pope

is simultaneously capable of speaking forcefully about his

positions while actively engaging the most ardent dissidents.

Many link the Pope's focus on the need for religion as a

building block of democracy with his boyhood experiences

during the Third Reich. British Historian Michael Burleigh

reveals Nazi leaders' determination to ``demolish the moral

authority of the Catholic Church'' in order to later abrogate

citizens' rights. The Pope believes that once religion

becomes attenuated and removed from society, then the void is

filled by an authoritarian dictatorship and there is no

longer a check or balance to political power.

This concept has also been expressed by President George W.

Bush, as he has often said that free people foster peace

because they can change out their leaders. There is a similar

history with the evolution of dissent in communist Russia,

from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who gave life to the focus on

human rights in Russia, to Pope John Paul II.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright writes that

part of the failure of the opposition to communism in Vietnam

was the fact that the Saigon government repressed Buddhism--

the ``largest noncommunist institution in the country''--

leaving an obvious void. She also criticized in her book

those who sought to ignore or downplay the role of religion

in many of the foreign policy conflicts she dealt with during

her time in government, like Northern Ireland, Muslim India

and pre-revolutionary Iran, saying, ``Religion is a large

part of what motivates people and shapes their views of

justice and right behavior.''

At least in the United States, statistical research backs

up the Pope's philosophical and theological perspective.

Robert Putnam and David Campbell, in their new work, American

Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, put forward

empirical social science research to argue for the value of

religion in establishing good behavior and improved

citizenship. Their data show when religion matters to people,

they are more charitable with their time and their money, and

they belong to more civic organizations. The research also

correlates positively with political involvement of all

ideologies and voting. Interestingly, the data show that the

more religious one is, the more likely that person is to feel

that tax evasion is ``always wrong.'' These are behaviors

which are essential to a smoothly functioning democracy which

is engaged in preserving its freedoms. Their research proves

empirically what George Washington thought in 1796, that ``of

all the dispositions and habits which lead to political

prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable

supports.''

religion and reason

The Pope's concern for the perils of secularism has led to

the second front of his personal diplomacy, the quest for a

mutual relationship between reason and religion. His first

opportunity to raise this issue came with the Islamic outrage

over the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed by

the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in 2005. The Pope's

comment that ``intolerance and violence can never be

justified as response[s] to offenses'' parallels the U.S.

State Department's official position, which defended freedom

of speech even when it was unpopular to do so. Both the

United States and Holy See offered courageous support for

journalists the world over. This issue continued as recently

as last Fall when a group of extremists attempted to bomb the

Swedish newspaper Jyllands-Posten because it had reprinted

the cartoon as a demonstration of free speech.

Months later, Pope Benedict's first foray into the global

spotlight after his election featured highly publicized

remarks at his former teaching post, the University of

Regensburg. The Pope referred to Byzantine emperor Manuel II

Paleologus saying Islam is Prophet Mohammed's ``command to

spread by the sword the faith he preached'' in an effort to

express his concem over the extremism, aggression and

immutability reflected in certain Islamic doctrines and parts

of the Koran.

As the sound bite reverberated around the world, evoking a

variety of reactions, the broader meaning and intent of his

expressions that day have resonated more profoundly as a

global discussion and analysis of the Koran, Islam and its

relations to the modern world have ensued.

The crucial point, reinforced constantly since Regensburg,

is that reason and religion can--and indeed must--co-exist in

the modern world. The only way forward is to continually

foster this mutual relationship. What is a quest for

rationality tempering fervor and fanaticism in some

expressions of Islam and other religious traditions is

coupled, at least by the Pope and the Holy See, with more

fervor and excitement about religion in the modern, secular

state.

Since Regensburg there have been numerous debates and

publications commenting on the issue of the immutability of

the word of the Prophet Mohammed expressed in the Koran, on

whether Shiite or Sunni Islam is more subject to

interpretation and contextualization and about what the

Enlightenment meant or should mean for

Islam. These issues are important and relevant to the

discussion of religion in modernity and underscore the

urgency of the need for workable doctrines, policies and

intellectual frameworks within which to create opportunities

for reconciliation and conflict avoidance.

Again in his address at Westminster Hall, the Pope

postulated that advocates of both secular rationality and

religious belief ``need one another and should not be afraid

to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good

of our civilization.''

The harsh reality of the fault line between reason and

religion has received greater international attention

following the United Kingdom visit. Religious intolerance

recently fueled two deadly church bombings in the Middle

East. The October 31, 2010 massacre in Baghdad killed more

than 50 Syriac Catholics and 23 Coptic Christians were

murdered in Alexandria, Egypt on January 1, 2011, all while

attending services. These events tragically reaffirm the

Pope's UK call for religious freedom.

conclusion

In his five years as pope, Benedict has led a diplomatic

mission embracing the positive role of religion in politics,

global justice and the peaceful evolution of civilization.

Occasionally blunt and sometimes misunderstood, he has not

shrunk from the 21st century challenges of secularization and

radicalism and has lent his lifetime of theological and

philosophical study to help solve these seemingly intractable

problems.

In his address for the celebration of the World Day of

Peace on January 1, 2011, delivered almost as the attack in

Alexandria was taking place, the Pope highlighted the

humanizing and civilizing role of religion in the development

of civil society. Pope Benedict XVI said, ``Freedom and

respect are inseparable;'' and, moreover, that ``religious

freedom is the condition for the pursuit of truth.'' He went

on to quote from the Vatican II Declaration on Religious

Freedom Dignitatis Humanae: ``in exercising their rights,

individuals and social groups are bound by the moral law to

have regard for the rights of others.'' Once again, in this

message broadly addressed to all people, the Pope reaffirmed

the critical linkages of religious freedom and human dignity

to the pursuit of justice and peace, and to the truth and

objective credibility which reason adduces to the profession

of faith.

Though a relatively older Pope when he was elected, Pope

Benedict XVI has shown vigor and spirit in expressing the

diplomacy of the Holy See. The September trip to the United

Kingdom urged preservation and enhancement of the role of

religion in modern society and government, and continues to

call for dialogue and the coexistence of religion and reason

in today's world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues several more articles that I have written over the years regarding the Holy See. As a Member of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, these pieces serve to outline and inform discussions that our Committee will cover in the 115th Congress.

U.S. must embrace Holy See

The past few years have seen cordial but cooling relations

between the United States and the Vatican. Since President

Obama took office, he has visited the Vatican just once, and

the administration has demonstrated little more than a

perfunctory interest in the Holy See's diplomatic role in the

world. This is a lost opportunity at a critical time for

America. U.S. foreign policy has much to gain from its

relationship with the Holy See, the governing body of the

Catholic Church. No institution on earth has both the

international stature and the global reach of the Holy See--

the ``soft power'' of moral influence and authority to

promote religious freedom, human liberties, and related

values that Americans and our allies uphold worldwide.

President Reagan established full diplomatic relations with

the Holy See in 1984 because, among other reasons, he

realized that he could have no better partner than Pope John

Paul II in the fight against communism--and he was right. The

administration of George W. Bush continued to expand these

relations, even in difficult times while engaged in a

conflict in Iraq of which the Holy See had strongly and

vocally disapproved. Before President Obama's recent

appointment of Ken Hackett as the next U.S. ambassador to the

Holy See, there was growing speculation that the

administration was considering completely eliminating the

diplomatic mission, or reducing it to an appendage of the

Embassy in Rome. While the Obama administration has been in

conflict with the Catholic Church on a range of issues from

abortion to contraception, it is clearly in America's

national interests to strengthen diplomatic ties with the

Holy See to advance our interests around the world.

The United States and the Holy See remain two of the most

significant institutions in world history, one a beacon of

democracy and progress, the other a sanctum of faith and

allegiance to timeless principles. Despite these differences

between the first modern democracy and the longest surviving

Western monarchy, both were founded on the idea that ``human

persons'' possess inalienable natural rights granted by God.

This had been a revolutionary concept when the Catholic

Church embraced it 2,000 years ago, and was equally

revolutionary when the Declaration of Independence stated it

1,800 years later.

The Church is one of the leading advocates and providers

for the poor in the world, fights against the scourge of

human trafficking, and advances the cause of human dignity

and rights more than any other organization in the world. The

Holy See also plays a significant role in pursuing diplomatic

solutions to international predicaments. In 2007, for

example, the Holy See helped secure the release of several

British sailors who had been picked up by the Iranian navy.

Its long-standing bilateral relations with Iran and the lack

of such relations by the British and other western

governments created an opportunity for successful

intervention.

And more recently, the Holy See issued its diplomatic note

concerning the civil war in Syria, calling for a ``concept of

citizenship'' in which everyone is a citizen with equal

dignity. It is urging the commissions which are working on a

possible future constitution and laws to ensure that

Christians and representatives of all other minorities be

involved. This immediately helped place a spotlight on the

plight of Christians and the ongoing exodus of all non-

Muslims from most Middle East countries for the last 30

years. The power and influence of the Holy See is often

underestimated. A benevolent monarchy tucked into a corner of

a modern democracy, the Holy See is at once a universally

recognized sovereign representing more than a billion people

(one-seventh of the world's population)--and the civil

government of the smallest nation-state on earth. It has no

military and only a negligible economy, but it has greater

reach and influence than most nations. It's not simply the

number or variety of people that the Holy See represents that

gives it relevance; it's also the moral influence of the

Church, which is still considerable despite secularization

and scandals.

The Holy See advocates powerfully for morality in the lives

of both Catholics and non-Catholics, and in both individuals

and nations. One may disagree with some of the Church's

positions and yet still recognize the value--the real and

practical value--of its insistence that ``right'' should

precede ``might'' in world affairs. At its core, the Catholic

Church is a powerful and unique source of non-coercive ``soft

power'' on the world stage--it moves people to do the right

thing by appealing to ideals and shared values, rather than

to fear and brute force. America's foreign policy is much

more likely to succeed with the support of the Holy See.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently gave a nod to

this soft power in his Washington Post op-ed when he decried

the ``framework that has emphasized hard power and the use of

brute force.'' One can speculate on the motivations and

intentions of such an unlikely source, but at least there is

an admission of the importance of diplomatic alternatives

which are based on persuasive fundamental principles.

No two sovereigns are more naturally aligned than the

United States and the Holy See in the pursuit of diplomacy

founded on the core moral principles of the inalienable

rights of man, his essential God-granted human dignity, and

the right of all to religious freedom. This is rightly called

the ``first freedom'' because our other freedoms seldom

flourish in its absence.

Reflecting on the Life of Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Diplomat of the Holy

See

The death of Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Papal Nuncio to the

United States for the last five years, is a great loss for

the diplomatic community in Washington, D.C. and for the

world. A veteran diplomat with many years experience in

Israel and Palestine, Archbishop Sambi brought a depth of

knowledge and personal credibility to the diplomacy of the

Holy See which will be greatly missed.

Prior to his posting in Washington, Archbishop Sambi was

stationed in Cuba, Nicaragua, Belgium and India. As papal

representative to Israel and Palestine from 1998 until 2005,

he was instrumental in the planning and execution of the Holy

Land visit of Pope John Paul II in 2000 and was deeply

involved in the Holy See's diplomacy during the 2006 Lebanon

war, where the traditional power sharing coalition was

challenged by the presence of Hezbollah. His personal

credibility was important during this war in mobilizing the

Christian coalition there.

His Cuba and Nicaragua experience was important in his

understanding of the challenges the United States faces in

these countries and in expressing the Holy See's goals for

religious freedom and pursuance of the democratic process

there. He was Nuncio in Nicaragua as the Sandinista

revolution took control of the country and challenged church

authority and democratic institutions there. He was involved

in planning Pope John Paul II's 1983 visit wherein the Pope

challenged Daniel Ortega and his government.

While Archbishop Sambi was in Cuba in an earlier time, from

1974-1979, his efforts in working with the local church were

valuable in keeping the goals of freedom and tolerance alive.

The recent release of the last of the March 2003 political

prisoners in Cuba by the Castro government exemplifies the

valuable contributions of Holy See diplomacy, the result of

many leaders like Archbishop Sambi.

He was, in short, a most qualified diplomat and a man whose

warmth reminded many officials of the first apostolic pro-

nuncio to the United states, Cardinal Pio Laghi.

In meetings with him I realized his keen understanding of

the unique role of religion and faith in the United States as

protected by the First Amendment. He realized, like his

predecessor Archbishop Pio Laghi, that the American

experiment of the First Amendment has much to offer the

world.

Though it is only natural for a prominent priest to

proclaim the importance of religious freedom and its

importance in sustaining civil society, Sambi was also an

earnest proponent of the freedoms of speech and press. He

warmly received journalists in an effort to connect with an

American audience that went beyond the capital beltway region

and daily withstood anti-Catholic protestors picketing just

outside his office. In times of crisis within the Church and

without, he resolutely defended the goodness that religion

offers the world--peace, justice, love, and true individual

freedom.

Many times he made a point of explaining that the

foundation of the diplomatic mission of the Holy See is

rooted squarely in the pursuits of freedom, tolerance and the

protection of human dignity. The ``soft power'' of moral

rectitude and persuasion is what drove the Archbishop in his

work.

His death last Friday following a serious lung operation at

Johns Hopkins Hospital is a time for reflection on the

twenty-seven years of official recognition between the U.S.

government and the Holy See in Vatican City. In that short

period, the bilateral relationship has flourished into a deep

commitment. Together, the world's most influential state and

the world's smallest sovereign state combine to address

serious problems like human trafficking, extremist violence

and religious intolerance.

As I mourn the loss of my friend, laid to rest in his

hometown of Sogliano al Rubicone, Italy, I am thankful for

his witness and example, and also have to pause and reflect

on the moral leadership of the United States around the

world, which Archbishop Sambi so deeply appreciated and

valued.

Pope Francis' First Visit to U.S. Provides Historic Opportunity

Pope Francis' highly anticipated visit to the United States

offers an opportunity to advance our understanding of the

significant role that the pope and the Holy See play in world

affairs. And just as important, the Papal Visit will afford

Pope Francis a glimpse at the fundamental values at work in

the United States--providing a unique occasion to inform his

views on crucial economic, human rights, and environmental

issues. Pope Francis has never visited the United States, so

there is a historic opportunity to demonstrate how American

values can help resolve many vexing global problems.

The pope will break new ground in addressing the Joint

Session of Congress. By responding to Speaker Boehner's

historic invitation, Pope Francis will engage with the

Congress as no pope has previously, reinforcing his role as a

global leader and drawing unprecedented public attention to

his major diplomatic themes and objectives.

Thus far in his papacy Pope Francis has laid out several

important priorities which might surface in his address and

broader visit to the United States.

From the beginning, the pope has made a priority to

highlight the global challenge of migration and the ensuing

deprivation of basic human needs of people displaced from

their homes. The lesson of his first papal trip, to

Lampedusa, resonates today with the increase in refugees from

Syria and Africa. He urged the world to ``oppose the

globalization of indifference'' to the plight of these

people.

Recently, in his encyclical Laudate Si, Pope Francis used

forceful language to call attention to environmental

degradation and, somewhat controversially, linked consumption

and waste in industrialized countries with poverty and lack

of opportunity in the emerging world.

One success of this visit could be that the pope sees in

the United States a people who also care for their

environment yet offer practical solutions to reduce pollution

like nurturing the use of cleaner fuels, deploying advanced

technologies and supporting alternative energy sources

throughout the world.

Another aspect of Pope Francis' diplomatic outreach has

been criticism of capitalism as abusive and insensitive to

the poor and the disadvantaged. In many respects what the

pope has expressed is consistent with historic Catholic

social teaching, descending from Rerum Novarum and Pope Leo

XIII, but he has brought a different tone and diction to the

discussion of political economy.

This may be the greatest result of the papal visit--if Pope

Francis experiences something different in the United States,

distinct from his experience in Latin America. In Argentina,

broad-based corruption and crony capitalism dominate;

oligarchic businesses feed off of the state and provide

little to their workers. Many parts of Latin America, the

pope's basis of perspective, have significant inequality of

wealth, abusive governments and abridged freedoms. The

opportunity to rise up and achieve one's God-given talents is

circumscribed.

Our challenge during his short time in the United States is

to draw his attention to the fundamental American values of

economic and personal liberty. This unique combination of

religious and personal freedom, as Alexis de Tocqueville

foresaw in the early 19th century, created an engine for

prosperity of its citizens unlike any previous governmental

experiment.

The itinerary of Pope Francis' visit to the United States

represents the quintessential new world experience;

Washington DC, the epicenter of political power in the United

States and derivatively in the world. Next he will travel to

New York, the locus of financial power and influence in the

world, and the home of the United Nations, the ultimate

gathering place of all nations. Finally, Pope Francis will

stop in Philadelphia, where American democracy began.

Hopefully Pope Francis will depart the United States with a

heartfelt understanding of the good that can result when

political and economic institutions foster individual liberty

and freedom.

Likewise, if the attention the pope draws from the citizens

of the United States serves to increase their understanding

of where he comes from and what he seeks to accomplish,

another important goal will have been achieved--enhanced

appreciation for the important and constructive role the

papacy and the Holy See play in the world today, in the

diplomatic engagement among states as well as in Catholic

theology.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues several articles that I have written over the years regarding the Middle East. As a Member of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, these pieces serve to outline and inform discussions that our Committee will cover in the 115th Congress.

ISIS, Islamic Extremism, and the Long War

Regardless of various opinions about the United States'

military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, I

would argue that President Bush's words to a joint session of

Congress on 20 September of that year ring just as true and

valuable now: ``We are a country awakened to danger and

called to defend freedom'' against an onslaught by terrorists

practicing ``a fringe form of Islamic extremism''.

Recent unconscionable acts of violence by Islamic

militants, including beheadings and burnings alive not heard

of for hundreds of years, demand broad and possibly unique

means of response and concerted action by the modem world.

Certainly the ``overseas contingency operation'' with which

the Obama Administration replaced the ``Global War on

Terror'' in May 2009 has failed to accomplish the task. Now

ISIS leaders openly threaten to ``conquer your Rome, break

your crosses and enslave your women.''

Not since the Communist state of Stalin, or perhaps the

Third Reich, have we faced such a potential, or at least

self-proclaimed, existential threat to the modem world. It

required a half century of containment to mutate the former

and a brutal world war to eradicate the latter.

The religious inspiration behind ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda,

and affiliated groups add a different face to the movements

which call for responses broader than purely military

activity. Recalling President Truman's unsuccessful effort to

draw the world's religions into the fight against communism,

we need to draw religious leaders from all traditions--

especially the vast majority of Muslims who do not align

themselves with the medieval barbarism of the terrorists--

into open and concerted action in opposition to the threat

posed here.

In the early 1950s, Truman found only one group, the

Catholic Church, willing to broadly and openly attack

communism. In 2006, it was Pope Benedict XVI who spoke out

more clearly and aggressively against the evil of using

religion to inspire hatred and violence--and of the

fundamental incompatibility of the Prophet's command to

``spread the word by the sword'' with the way of life in the

modem 21st century. He urged the Islamic world to reconcile

the Koran with modernity, to bring reason to its

interpretations just as the Enlightenment did for theocratic

monarchies in the 18th century. He made it clear that

moderate Muslims must take responsibility for their own

religion.

And while there have been some encouraging comments, inter-

religious dialogues, and op-eds to this effect, we are still

in the early stages of a protracted struggle for the minds of

heretofore not radicalized muslims. The ``soft power'' of

religious opinion makers is an important factor. In fact,

some have argued as Ambassador Charles Freeman (USFS, Ret.)

has that ``only a coalition with a strong Muslim identity can

hope to contain'' the terrorists. He argues that the

doctrines of ISIS cannot be successfully refuted by non-

Muslims because the U.S. ``lacks the religious credentials to

refute'' Islamic terrorist groups as ``a moral perversion of

Islam.''

The lack of cultural integration in different nations'

societies also presents a major challenge. Whether it is

European ``multiculturalism,'' or an affirmative prejudice,

the lack of alignment of many Muslim groups with the national

identities and cultures of their countries has created a

breeding ground for radicalization. Here is where our unique

American ``exceptionalism'' can show the light. Our ``melting

pot'' tradition of assimilation of diverse peoples has

created--despite some bumps in the road--a uniquely broad and

culturally tolerant society. And the related concept of

citizenship based on residence and personal actions rather

than blood and lineage can serve as a powerful model.

As the world gropes for solutions, it has become clear that

concerted action by the modem world, akin to the Allied

Powers' collaborative actions to confront the Axis, is

absolutely necessary. Spain and France recently passed bi-

partisan laws granting expansive powers to the authorities to

monitor and interdict internet connectivity with radical

Islamic sites, to isolate and track down ``lone wolf''

terrorists, and to restrict and contain travel to and from

places of known terrorist activities. Modifying the Schengen

visa program and putting in place tightened border security

are issues to consider as means of improving tracking of

known terrorist suspects.

Lastly, we should consider a ``containment'' and isolation

program to ring fence the terrorist geographies, turn them

onto themselves and limit their capacity to export murder

beyond their borders. In so doing, perhaps we can help assure

that their neighbors who are our allies in all this

(especially Jordan) are reinforced and protected. Turkey has

a powerful role to play both because of their long land

border with Syria and Iraq, and due to the complexities

presented by the PKK in Turkey and the evolution of Kurdistan

and its Peshmerga, which are capable fighters and allies of

the West. Only a comprehensive strategy can turn the tide and

lead us to ultimate victory in the Long War.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Florida Gulf Coast University with their return into March Madness for a second year in a row. The Eagles scored a big win against the No. 3 seed North Florida on Sunday. This is the third NCAA Tournament appearance for the Eagles since 2013.

I applaud the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles and Head Coach Dooley for their victory. There is a reason why FGCU is known as Dunk City--now go shut down more shot clocks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my wife Kathleen and I to wish Mrs. Rhodora J. Donahue a very happy 92nd birthday.

We hope Rhodora is celebrating this very special day surrounded by her loved ones. I believe a loving family is the greatest treasure in life and with 13 married children, 82 grandchildren, and 108 great grandchildren, Rhodora has most certainly attained it. I hope you all can join me in wishing her continued health and happiness throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Florida Gulf Coast University with their return into March Madness for a second year in a row. The Eagles scored a big win against the No. 3 seed North Florida on Sunday. This is the third NCAA Tournament appearance for the Eagles since 2013.

I applaud the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles and Head Coach Dooley for their victory. There is a reason why FCGU is known as Dunk City--now go shut down more shot clocks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Captain John ``Giddy Up'' Bunch, a Southwest Floridian and a Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam. As the owner of GiddyUp Fishing Charters in St. James City, Florida, Captain Bunch combined his love for fishing with his love for our country when he invited a group of servicemen fishing out of gratitude for their service. This inspired him to dedicate his time to giving back to our veterans, which he did by founding Operation Open Arms.

The organization's mission is to recruit people and businesses that are willing to donate their services and support to troops on leave, or those returning home, to give them a much-needed respite from their service. Since 2005, with over 300 volunteers supporting the program, Operation Open Arms has provided joy to over 3,000 servicemen and women and their families by providing services including vacations, weddings, fishing trips, counseling programs and funeral funds, totaling over $13 million in benefits.

Captain Bunch was awarded the status of Honorary Life Member of American Legion Post 135 in Naples, Florida, and received the Outstanding Civilian Service Award at the Chief of Staff of the Army Salute last September, further exemplifying his dedication to making Operation Open Arms a success. His generosity and patriotism are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues several articles that I have written over the years regarding the Holy See. As a Member of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, these pieces serve to outline and inform discussions that our Committee will cover in the 115th Congress.

Reflecting on Pope Benedict's Papacy

(By Francis Rooney)

The decision by Pope Benedict XVI to retire February 28 is

a remarkable act of humility and selflessness, and should be

seen as a fitting closure on a papacy that was quietly

significant. When Joseph Ratzinger was elected in the 2005

conclave, many pundits viewed him as a temporary

officeholder. Yet, Benedict XVI fulfilled the legacy he set

out for himself when choosing the name of the World War I

Pope. For nearly eight years, Benedict was a firm advocate of

dialog with friend and foe. He bravely offered to the world a

gift cherished by the Catholic faith--the union of faith and

reason. In this capacity, the Pope was a bridge builder, and

lived up to his Latin title Pontifex Maximus. Much maligned,

Benedict put the Church in the perilous but necessary

position between extremist religious fundamentalism and

extremist secular materialism.

As United States Ambassador to the Holy See (2005-2008), I

met the Pope on several occasions to discuss the symmetry of

values between the Holy See (colloquially referred to as the

Vatican) and the United States. In those private meetings and

his annual addresses to the diplomatic corps, Pope Benedict

XVI exuded a humility that reflected the solemnity of his

office. Elected to succeed the charismatic Blessed John Paul

II, he is to be commended for continuing the Holy See's

active role in promoting human dignity for all individuals. A

great scholar, Benedict reminds us that religious values have

an important role to play in the public square.

In the span of eight years, Benedict visited 24 nations and

the Palestinian Territories. He is the oldest Pope to travel

outside of Europe. In each pastoral visit, his diplomacy was

understated and subtle, principally the act of Christian

love. His influence on Catholics, and also ``people of good

will'', is a testament to soft power. For example, the Pope's

letter to Iranian president Ahmadinejad was decisive in

resolving the disputed kidnapping of British sailors in 2007.

In his trips to Cuba and Lebanon in 2012, Benedict asserted

that politics is subordinate to moral considerations.

Two trips epitomize the theme of Benedict's papacy--

Regensburg in 2006 and London in 2010. In the former, the

erudite professor was quickly denounced by much of the

international media for a criticism against a corruption of

Islam that is intolerant and rejects human agency. The

complex lecture inspired violent reprisals by some

misinformed and radicalized Muslims around the world. Months

later a Saudi prince visited the Holy See to foster and

reciprocate the Pope's forthright dialog.

Four years later, Pope Benedict traveled to London despite

vocal opposition from a small group of anti-Catholic critics.

Displaying tremendous poise, Benedict graciously spoke in

Westminster Hall. Learning from Regensburg the need for

clarity and concision more than academic merit, Benedict

shared his view that ``the world of reason and the world of

faith--the world of secular rationality and the world of

religious belief--need one another and should not be afraid

to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good

of our civilization.'' It was a high point for the Catholic

Church, and a statement that religion and spirituality are

not incompatible with modern life.

The decision to retire is an act of humility. Benedict has

left an indelible mark on the Catholic Church, preserved his

theme of bonding faith and reason, and even maintained

integrity amidst a much-touted scandal over his trusted

butler. The Servant of the Servants of God, a phrase

introduced by Pope Saint Gregory I near the end of the sixth

century, leaves office in an act of selflessness.

Soon after Benedict resigns, a papal conclave will be

called in Rome. The College of Cardinals will meet in the

Sistine Chapel and elect a new Pope. As decreed by Pope John

Paul II, Cardinals more than 80 years old cannot vote. As of

right now, 118 Cardinals are eligible to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a creative visionary in Florida's 19th district--Leoma Lovegrove. As an excerpt from the Fort Myers News-Press says, ``Walking into Lovegrove Gallery & Gardens is like walking into a rainbow full of eye-popping neon pinks, oranges, purples, greens and blues . . . She applies her paintbrush to everything from cats to hearts to The Beatles.''

Leoma Lovegrove is an impressionist-expressionist painter known for her vivid paintings and colorful imagery. Leoma first started her art career making pottery, belt buckles and even decorated cow skulls. Then, a little over 20 years ago, she made her way to Matlacha--a small island community that became her home and her headquarters. Her artwork is represented in numerous galleries all over the world, including England and France. In fact, Leoma was the first American to paint on the replica of Claude Monet's floating studio in Giverny, France and the first American painter to have an exhibition in the famous Pierre Bonnard home in Vernon, France.

I applaud Leoma and her art studio, Lovegrove Gallery & Gardens, which has brought thousands of visitors to Matlacha and all of Southwest Florida. Leoma is inspired to paint with endless imagination, and her contribution to the arts, culture and economy of Southwest Florida deserves our recognition. She has inspired artists in us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues several articles that I have written over the years regarding Latin America. As a Member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, these pieces serve to outline and inform discussions that our Committee will cover in the 115th Congress. I include in the Record the attached articles.

What Real Progress on Cuba Should Look Like

(By Mel Martinez & Francis Rooney)

When President Obama stepped off Air Force One in Havana,

many focused on the historic nature of his visit to Cuba--the

first since President Calvin Coolidge. Coverage is focused on

a thaw in Cold War animosity, and images of President Obama

strolling the Malecon and meeting with Raul Castro are being

broadcast around the world. However, behind those scenes, the

Cuban people continue to suffer under a regime that denies

them the rights, the freedom, the opportunity, and the

dignity they deserve. Without addressing human rights,

economic freedom, and freedom of expression, President

Obama's trip is likely to be nothing more than speeches and

photo ops.

First, President Obama should make it clear that further

opening of ties between the U.S. and Cuba is contingent upon

further political, economic, and social reforms. These

preconditions would make it clear to the Cuban regime that

despite the restoration of diplomatic ties, the benefits they

seek from trade, investment, and tourism from the United

States are destined to benefit the Cuban people--not to

buttress a repressive regime.

In Havana, we hope that President Obama reminds the Cuban

regime of how far it lags behind its neighbors in the region

who have embraced democracy, economic freedom, and the rule

of law. Compared to the region, Cuba has remained an economic

and political backwater. It must be made clear to the Cuban

regime that their restrictions on political freedom, civil

rights, free expression, and the rule of law are on the wrong

side of history.

To this end, President Obama should push the Cuban regime

to begin significant shifts to ensure the rule of law and

initial steps towards the creation of an independent

judiciary free of Communist Party influence. Protections of

human rights, property, and dignity must come before the

interests of the Cuban Communist Party. Furthermore, with

party poised to hold its Seventh Congress next month,

President Obama should suggest that further rapprochement

requires that Congress to chart a path towards free and fair

elections, and not to serve as a rubber stamp for the next

generation of Communist apparatchiks.

More importantly, it must be made clear to the Cuban regime

that the United States will not tolerate the continuing

brutal detention of human rights activists and regime

opposition. In the lead up to President Obama's visit, 300

people have been arrested

since March 8th. Dozens of the Damas de Blanco were arrested

before Obama's arrival over the weekend. Their ``crime'' is

to demand the freedoms and rights that are not just U.S.

interests, but rather fundamental American values. If the

harassment and persecution of these reformers continues,

President Obama should let the Cuban regime know that this

rapprochement will be at least frozen, if not significantly

rolled back.

On the economic front, the U.S. private sector cannot be

the successor to the Soviet Union and Chavez's Venezuela in

propping up the Cuban regime. The Helms-Burton Act will

continue to remain the law of the land, and President Obama

should remind the Cuban regime that Congress is unlikely to

change that without a significant relaxation of the political

and economic fetters the Cuban regime places on its people.

Furthermore, President Obama should make it clear that it

is not acceptable for the Cuban government to serve as a

pass-through middleman who receives investments in dollars or

euros, and pays workers in Cuban Pesos that represent a

fraction of the value of worker labor. If U.S. firms do

invest in Cuba, they must be allowed to pay their workers

directly--in dollars.

Additionally, if further investments are made in Cuban

telecommunication systems, and if data connections between

the U.S. mainland and Cuba are bolstered, the U.S. government

should insist that the Cuban people have access to a free,

uncensored version of the Internet. Improved

telecommunications need to be contingent on ensuring that

Cubans can join the global digital commons and communicate

freely. Furthermore, with U.S.-Cuba increased data traffic on

the horizon, the Obama Administration should make it

absolutely clear that Cuba cannot continue to serve as a

listening post for Russian and Chinese signals intelligence

and cyber espionage aimed at the United States.

While we still believe that the Cuban regime has

demonstrated far too little in the way of reform or openness

to warrant the steps the Obama Administration has taken in

opening to Cuba, we feel that these actions would ensure that

his trip to Havana can bring about real benefits for the

Cuban people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 67, a resolution which will protect individual savers for their retirement and small business retirement plans.

I was proud to introduce this resolution to affirm the bipartisan protections the ERISA law has afforded workers and retirees for decades. ERISA offers important legal safeguards so workers and retirees will receive their hard-earned savings.

We need Federal Government policies that will empower workers to save for their retirement and incentivize small businesses to offer 401(k) plans to their employees.

H.J. Res. 67 preserves these policies and protections, and will terminate the defective efforts instituted in the last hours of the recent administration, in which they implemented regulatory loopholes to replace private savings for retirement with sweetheart deals for city- and State-run programs with fewer protections and lower standards.

The California folks that are in charge of this stuff were quoted in an article in a national publication in the spring, gloating about their exciting win, and that it ``would have no liability or fiduciary duty for the plan. . . . We have been given the green light. . . . ''

The regulation we are terminating here would restrict our hardworking savers from deciding what they can invest in. They will be required to blindly entrust their hard-earned money to State and local bureaucrats unless they affirmatively opt out.

The government will decide what investment options will be available to them. There is a serious risk of political or social investing by these bureaucrats instead of individual investor-based decisions.

Worst of all, the regulation which we are abolishing would undermine the very successful 401(k) retirement savings program. Due to 401(k)'s and related defined-contribution plans, savings have gone from $7.8 billion to over $25 billion in about 20 years. It has been a huge success.

We should be encouraging Americans and private companies to privately invest in 401(k) plans, which offer three distinct advantages:

The contribution amount to a 401(k) plan is three times what can be put in an IRA.

Employers match contributions. Many companies match 1 for 1 up to 4 percent of what the employee puts in. That is a powerful incentive for the employee to save.

The last thing is, 401(k) plans are protected by the ERISA law. They ensure that workers' savings are secure.

Furthermore, some 57 million Americans currently participate in privately funded IRAs.

In the end, the regulations which we are abolishing were just another Big Government mandate to crowd out the private sector. These resolutions will put an end to the Obama administration's sweetheart deal, and will ensure that private sector workers continue to receive strong protections as they save for their retirement.

This resolution will block the chance for cities and States to get their hands on our friends' and our employees' retirement savings.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect retirement savers today by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 67.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about and oppose the travesty known as ObamaCare.

The need to replace this program was obvious on day one. It is a failed socioeconomic experiment perpetrated by people who don't believe in individual choice and don't understand free market competition. In fact, we can see less than half of the folks that were supposed to sign up have done it because it is a bad deal for them. Nothing promised under this medical health insurance program has proved true. Care costs have gone up, premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed.

We have another chart here, if I might, that shows a projected 25- plus percent increase in premiums in 2017. My State of Florida is 19 percent. Coverage has been circumscribed and reduced. This business about keeping your doctor has proven to be another falsehood. You can't afford to keep your doctor. You can't afford to keep your insurance.

The entire program was flawed from the beginning. It is a top-down, government-run boondoggle. All it has done is

create monopolies for a bunch of insurance companies. I have heard heart-wrenching personal stories from so many families in southwest Florida who have suffered severe financial burdens and have had reduced and dropped coverage because of ObamaCare.

Paying more for less is bad policy. It is bad economics. It is a raw deal for Americans. Now we have the opportunity to do three things to turn the page and put this disaster of ObamaCare behind us. We have the opportunity today to enact the resolution, which will lead to repealing ObamaCare. We have the opportunity to have Dr. Price take the helm of Health and Human Services and begin a substantial administrative overhaul. And we have the opportunity to put in the replacement plan that has been talked about, described in A Better Way for America, which provides a seamless transition into a new form of health care, leaves no one without coverage, and assures the continual coverage of preexisting conditions. But it will offer consumer choice the American way. It will make coverage affordable and competitive.

It will stimulate competition for insurance coverage across State lines for moving an archaic and artificial barrier, which shouldn't be there in the first place. Lastly, it will encourage innovation in the delivery of health care in advances in treatment.