Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 377, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 378, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FRANKS

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Speaker, I deeply and sincerely regret that I was not able to be present for Rolled Suspension on H. Res. 615, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of full membership of Israel in the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations, and Rolled Suspension on H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow political purpose. I hereby submit for the record my statement that had I been present for H. Res. 615 and H. Res. 713, I would have voted ``aye'' to both measures.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``Yes'' on H. Con. Res. 460 because I strongly support Israel and desire to promote her security. However, I would like to express my hesitation and concern with certain aspects of the policy that the Resolution seems to affirm. I believe that it would be prudent to obtain some answers before we completely commit to affirming the plan to resettle Israelis currently living in Gaza. It is important to know what the United States' commitment will be in supporting Prime Minister Sharon's initiative, including any undertaking regarding funding, humanitarian aid or other assistance, or military personnel to police the area. One of the major questions I have, Mr. Speaker, is whether supporting the Gaza pullout and a future Palestinian state is the proper diplomatic message we wish to send to those who would terrorize Israel, her people, and all of those who desire freedom and peace. I believe we must think proactively rather than reactively. We must ask ourselves, ``how will supporting this plan affect our continued war against terrorism and what will be the eventual impact on Israel?'' We must always be ready to re-evaluate our policies for the future in light of current circumstances and reflection on history. Mr. Speaker, in resolving to support continuing efforts to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, I further urge caution and great care to be taken in distinguishing between those who have proved themselves willing to work for peace and those who have continued in their battle against it.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman is exactly accurate. The idea that a good defense is a good offense is certainly not a new concept, but in this case it is extremely appropriate; and as you say, when terrorists are meeting in a tent and a bomb flies in, that can be a real distraction. It can really break up their approach, and I just think it says a great deal for this President in understanding the mindset of terrorists. The terrorists here are not going to be redeemed, and they are not going to turn over a new leaf or we are not going to be able to negotiate with them. We have to defeat them in the purest terms for the sake of the innocent people both in this country and other parts of the world, and I think the chairman is exactly right. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here tonight. I am especially gratified at the presence of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. I truly believe that there is not a finer American in the Congress than the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Mr. Speaker, as we begin to discuss some of the new events that are taking place in Iraq, I thought it might be good to review some of the circumstances that brought us there in the first place. Mr. Speaker, with all of the discussion lately regarding the search for weapons of mass destruction, regarding the Abu Ghraib prison issue, sometimes I think we forget what our basic reason was for going into Iraq. After September 11, this country recognized that it had entered into a different age, and the wars that we fought in the past and the Cold War we had an enemy that we recognized for who they were. We recognized that they had a capability that was incredibly dangerous to the freedom of the United States of America. We knew their capability, Mr. Speaker; but we did not always know their intentions. And, Mr. Speaker, I submit that even the basis of our defense at the time in the Cold War was predicated to a great degree on our enemies' sanity. We believed that they had enough respect for their own lives and enough commitment to live that somehow our own offensive capability would deter an attack from an enemy like the Soviet Union. And, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we would all like to have a better philosophy than mutually assured destruction, but indeed that philosophy kept us safe for a very long time. But, again, it was predicated on the sanity of our enemy. Today, Mr. Speaker, we recognize a different enemy. It is an asymmetric enemy that no longer fits the traditional mode at all. We now know the intention of our enemy very well. If September 11 did not teach us that, then I suppose it is a lesson that will escape us forever. If the circumstances regarding the brutal murder of Nick Berg does not teach us the mindset and intention of our enemy, then again I suppose that lesson will evade us. If the words of Osama bin Laden when he said that ``obtaining nuclear weapons is our religious duty,'' if that does not help us understand the gravity of the enemy we face, then perhaps again it is a lesson that will evade us to our great peril. Mr. Speaker, today with terrorism we face an enemy that has the worst possible intentions for America and the worst possible intentions for freedom. It is fundamentally critical that we interdict their capability. And, Mr. Speaker, of all the reasons for us to have gone into Iraq to free that country, one of the greatest is to interdict the entire process that leads to the terrorist organizations throughout the world. Terrorists understand that better than anyone. Even now terrorists come into Iraq on a regular basis to try to not only discourage Americans from maintaining their commitment to freedom but to do everything that they can to win the battle there in Iraq because they know that if there is a beachhead of freedom built in Iraq, if we truly can find freedom come to this nation, that it could begin to spread throughout the entire Middle East region, and, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it has the ability to turn the whole of humanity in a better direction. I truly believe that our choices are very simple: We either defeat terrorists in Iraq on their own ground, or we continue to fight them here. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we not only defeat terrorists on the battlefield, but we have to understand that we need to address the core rationale that spawned terrorism in the first place, and that is a misguided religious hatred. If we fail to address that and to win the battle of ideas, then we will be destined to fight this battle over and over again. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that gives me great hope along those lines is the recent visit that I was privileged to have in Iraq, privileged. I met with the Iraqi Governing Council. One of my great concerns has been the kind of constitution that Iraq would finally end up with. You say, well, you know, isn't that just the new Iraqi government's job to do that? Mr. Speaker, it is important that the new Iraqi government maintains the oversight of their constitution and builds the government for themselves. But I really, truly believe that America has a tremendous responsibility to help the newly freed, the newly liberated Nation of Iraq, have the advantage of some of our experience. It was not so long ago that young men in airplanes, with a misguided religious fervor once again, flew their airplanes into ships, and sometimes I wonder if we missed the connection there, that the same misguided young men today are flying airplanes into buildings, and for some of the same basic, twisted reasons. When we fought with Japan, when we prevailed, we told Japan that they should write their own constitution, and they did. They wrote three of them. None of them had religious freedom or any truly basic bill of rights in their constitution. So we recognized the importance of that, and at that time we literally imposed that constitution. We did not have to do that this time, Mr. Speaker. Now we have been privileged to see an interim constitution in Iraq that has almost all of the magnificent bill of rights that the U.S. Constitution has. Let me just quote Alexander Hamilton to underscore the importance of that. He said, ``If it be asked what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a republic, the answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution and the laws, the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is a vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.'' Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I have been terribly concerned that somehow once we liberated Iraq and withdrew, as we always do, we do not continue to occupy a nation after we liberate it. I think it has been said that the only piece of ground that the American soldier has ever occupied for any length of time has been that little green patch of grass under some Star of David or Cross of Calvary out on some foreign battlefield cemetery. Mr. Speaker, I pray that when we finally step away from Iraq that they will have the kind of constitutional foundation that will give them some of the same magnificent tools and hopes and dreams that America has had, because I think it would be very arrogant on the part of Americans to think we are smarter than everyone else. We have had a wonderful blessing of a foundational Constitution that gave us a pillar to build a republic upon, and it has absolutely astounded the world in the 225-plus years that we have been here. Mr. Speaker, I just hope with all of my heart that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi constitution that they now have remains in place, and I have some hope for that, because as I met with some of the Iraqi National Council they seemed to have caught the fever of freedom. It is like the quote from Leonardo da Vinci. He says, ``Once you have tasted flight, you shall thereafter walk the Earth with your face turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return.'' I truly believe that now the Iraqi people have tasted freedom they will hold on to this constitution. I am reminded of the quote from Daniel Webster in our own country about our own Constitution, and I think it bears repeating tonight. He said, ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.'' Mr. Speaker, indeed, the American Constitution was a miracle, and it brought forth the greatest country in the history of humanity, and I am just hopeful enough to believe that there is going to be a new miracle in the Middle East, and somehow the constitution that is now in place in Iraq will be something that will germinate in the hearts of new Iraqi leaders as they take over, and we will some day look back on this situation and realize that with all of the critiques and all of the things that come against our President now, that we faced those critiques before. Ronald Reagan certainly faced them, and yet now we see him as one of the greatest heroes in human modernity. So I am hopeful this freedom and miracle will repeat itself. Now I am just honored, Mr. Speaker, to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who I truly believe to be one of the greatest Americans in this body.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. That is a Silver Star.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the distinguished chairman. And it is very difficult, as you know, to add much to the chairman's words because he is so articulate and has such a command of the history and just the heart and passion of what it is all about. I guess I would only associate my own feelings with the way that the gentleman has pointed out the heroism of our soldiers. As it happens, just the Iraqi conflict about 3,700 soldiers have received Purple Hearts, 4 Distinguished Service Crosses, 127 Silver Stars, and 16,000 Bronze Stars and we had 7 that did bad things in the Abu Ghraib prison. I think it is a great reminder to those of us in the political atmosphere that it is not those of us in this body that are the ones that bought freedom, even though there are some of the veterans here, but it is those who went out on the front lines and poured their blood out on the battlefields that bought our freedom. With that, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman so much. Ironically, I suppose it does not surprise the chairman that one of his junior members would be largely in agreement with him related to the circumstances that we face in this world. I think that the terrorist circumstances today are just what the gentleman said. We have the melding of being 60 years in the nuclear age with this mindless terrorist element that has no regard for human life, their own or others, and I think that is a recipe of the gravest concern for the United States. I am perhaps more concerned than anything else about a nation like North Korea selling some type of nuclear weapon or weaponized anthrax or other weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda. And I think that even underscores further the importance of our presence in Iraq because in so doing, we are keeping the terrorist organizations occupied and, indeed, defeating them in the battlefields and breaking up that network. Sometimes terrorists, it is a terrible way to analogize it, but teenagers, if there is just one of them, do not get in a lot of trouble, but when they get together, they figure out ways to really get in trouble. I feel like that it is critically important for us to continue to break up the organizational mechanism.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I would be honored to do so. This is on the letterhead of the Secretary of the Navy in Washington, D.C., and it starts: ``The President of the United States takes pride in presenting the Silver Star posthumously to Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey E. Bohr, Jr., United States Marine Corps, for service as set forth in the following. ``CITATION: ``For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as Company Gunnery Sergeant, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 10 April 2003. With his company assigned the dangerous mission of seizing a presidential palace in Baghdad and concerned that logistical resupply might be slow in reaching his comrades once they reached the objective, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr selflessly volunteered to move in his two soft skinned vehicles with the company's main armored convoy. While moving through narrow streets toward the objective, the convoy took intense small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Throughout this movement, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr delivered accurate, effective fires on the enemy while encouraging his Marines and supplying critical information to his company commander. When the lead vehicles of the convoy reached a dead end and were subjected to enemy fire, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to boldly engage the enemy while calmly maneuvering his Marines to safety. Upon learning of a wounded Marine in a forward vehicle, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr immediately coordinated medical treatment and evacuation. Moving to the position of the injured Marine, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to lay down a high volume of suppressive fire, while simultaneously guiding the medical evacuation vehicle, until he was mortally wounded by enemy fire. By his bold leadership, wise judgment, and complete dedication to duty, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service. ``For the President, the Secretary of the Navy.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I just would be grateful to listen to your rambling at anytime. I think you so poignantly expressed the nobility of the American soldier. They are the most noble fighting force in the world. There is a verse that says, Greater love hath no man than this, than man lay down his life for his friends, and I am certain of what the American soldier has done. I find it kind of interesting as a closing thought that one of the members of the Iraq Governing Council and leader of Iraq's Assyrian Democratic Movement that visited here, his name is Younadem Kana, and he came to America and these were his words about our American soldiers in a sense. They are really to all of us. He said: ``We are calling on America not to stop; to go on with us on this blessed mission, which the Iraqi people will never forget: this blessed mission of liberation, of democracy, and of freedom.'' ``The Iraqi people are free now,'' Kana proclaims. ``For first time in the history of Iraq, for the first time in 14 centuries, our neighbors, and the majority of people today, recognize us and acknowledge us. We are all together on the Governing Council, and the cabinet; our rights are guaranteed under the fundamental law. ``We appreciate the losses of the United States of those 700 victims, martyrs we call them, who shed their blood on Iraqi soil. But compare the losses in 1 year of fighting terrorism to the roughly 3,000 people terrorism killed in America in 2 minutes. Think of the $84 billion lost in those 2 minutes, and compare that to the financial cost in Iraq. You have to make these comparisons, and then choose whether to fight the terrorists in the Middle East and keep yourselves safe, or to fight terrorism here, in your own home.'' Then he says, ``I am at risk all of the time. But this is the price of freedom.'' Our soldiers have certainly taught us the price of freedom.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, tonight it is my deepest heart- felt honor to remember and to celebrate the life of Ronald Wilson Reagan. President Reagan was a man of unfettered principle. He was not afraid to do what was right. And not only was he not afraid, he was tenaciously committed to doing only that that he thought was right in his own heart. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan warned us all to beware of the temptation to ignore the facts of history and the ``aggressive impulses of any evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove ourselves from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil.'' Mr. Reagan understood that some things were worth fighting, even dying, for, and he was resolute about them in his heart. President Reagan made us all believe that America still had what it takes to be victorious, to rise above and out of difficult circumstances, and to face devastating challenges. He said, ``Every promise, every opportunity, is still golden in this land. And through that golden door, our children walk into tomorrow with the knowledge that no one can be denied the promise that is America. Her heart is full, her future bright. She has arms big enough to comfort and strong enough to support.'' By the grace of God, those words are still true today. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan on so many occasions simply shared his wisdom and experience with us. He stated that ``the future does not belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.'' I believe he would want us to continue to make this Nation great by preserving its goodness. He would want us to continue in the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's life was a transformed one, one that reflected the light from within, and he shared that light with all of us in the brightness and warmth of his smile and in his grace and good humor. Mr. Reagan said this of his Savior: ``He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end, and by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go: all the way.'' Ronald Reagan's dark nights on this Earth have ended, and he is at this moment in the presence of his precious Savior. And now for Mr. Reagan each day has a bright new dawn and a shining sunset, and while he was here, he went all the way. And, Mr. Speaker, if he could speak to us one last time, I truly believe that he would tell us the same message that he told us so many times before when he said, you and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We can preserve this, the last best hope of mankind on Earth, for our children, or we can sentence them to take that very last step into a thousand years of darkness. If we do fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us that we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done. Thank you, Mr. President, for your life, and thank you for reminding us all of our rendezvous with destiny.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, that is pointed out very clearly in the year 2000 where only 52 percent of staff employees in public schools were teachers, about half; and many of them I am convinced that were not teachers would certainly have wanted the money to go towards instruction. If you look at the same year, only 52.4 percent of the nearly $382 billion spent nationwide on education, only about half was spent on instruction.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 382 billion in the year 1999 through 2000 school year. Only 52 percent was spent on instruction.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. The gentleman is exactly correct. Approximately $100 million has gone to the private scholarship groups and approximately 120 million additional dollars have gone into the public school setting.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. It lets the States make that decision. We tried to create the broadest possible latitude for the States and the local governments there to do that. Certainly if we look at, and there is a lot of criticism that Washington no longer cares about education, and they measure our concern for education in funding, but the reality is our funding for education in Washington has gone up precipitously, and in my judgment that is in the wrong direction.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, the gentleman is exactly correct. As it happens, somewhere around $100 million has been raised for children to go to the private school of their parents' choice.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. We have an estimated number of Federal programs, so when we talk about how we create these programs for the States, there are over 700 of them. And I would suggest to my colleagues that these mandates and regulations and ineffective programs make it very difficult for the local schools at the State level to comply with this. What they do in the meantime, and this is shocking, but $84 million in State education funds were recently returned to the U.S. Treasury because States had not used it for more than 3 years. I am convinced they are just ready to pull their hair out because they could not deal with these complex mandates we put on them from the Federal Government. I think there is a bigger issue here, and that is sometimes the Federal Government just needs to get out of the way and let the States and parents make the decisions on education. Because it seems like the more we get involved from the Federal level, the more we have a tendency to mess things up.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. That is correct, and it has the ancillary effect of causing parents to be more involved with that local public school. All of the sudden they have a stake in it personally. They have made a tax credit contribution to the school, and the schools then, of course, there is a dynamic. There is a communication that occurs there; and as you said in your remarks earlier, one of the prime indicators of successful education is an involved adult, in other words, the parental involvement in the education. In fact, if there was any single greatest factor in a successful child's education, and we talk about all the systemic approaches, but the greatest single involvement is parental involvement, and I think that is recognized in the home schools and private schools and public schools. It really oftentimes does not matter so much which one of those systems the child goes to as much as is the parent fully engaged and involved, and that is why I believe things like the tax credit for the public school and the tax credit for the private school option are so good because they, as a matter of course, as part of the logistics, they involve parents; and parents, when they are involved and have to make a choice, then not only are they more aware of the situation but they have an investment of their time and emotions, and they made a choice and now they have to make it work.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I think that if we look at the American economy, how it differs from, let us say Socialist countries in the world, and we see that we have placed nearly all of the direction of this economy, this monstrous productive American economy, in the hands of the consumer, in the hands of the everyday purchaser. Now, the reality is that there are always groups that join together and have economies of scale and magnify their purchasing power. But the reality is we have understood in this country that free enterprise and giving this over to private individuals has been a magnificent engine of productivity in this country. Across the world I have seen that we are the most productive economy in the history of humanity, and it is not because we are so much smarter than anybody else. It is simply because we have a better system. I would suggest that sometimes those that would denigrate trying to pull free enterprise and parental empowerment and choice into education forget the lessons of history. There were times when someone came along and said about Federal Express, when it came along, that it would destroy the post office. Well, not only did it not destroy the post office, it actually made them far more efficient. We send a letter across the country now in 2 days rather than 5 or 6. We have some of the more efficient efforts in the postal system than we have ever had. The postal system, many times, gives money back to the Treasury now, instead of us having to appropriate billions of dollars more. The same thing happened with the telephone system when we deregulated it and turned that back into the hands of consumers. When we let people make their choices about what was best for them, we revolutionized communications. All of a sudden people had cell phones everywhere. It has become the bane of our society, I think, to see and hear cell phones ringing everywhere, but people can send pictures using their cell phones, they can call Australia for 10 cents a minute, they can look up their Web site on their cell phone, and almost everyone has one these days. And it is because we knew if we could deregulate those things, that an engine of innovation would occur. Mr. Speaker, it astonishes me in this country that we have had the insight to increase the efficiency of the mail and the telephony of this country, and yet we do not afford our children the same opportunity to have competitive excellence in education.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. It does not, unless the home school would have some type of satellite classroom setting, and I would hope and look for the day that it would. Because, again, there is no one that has a higher opinion and a greater respect for the home schoolers of this country than I do. They simply have done such a magnificent job that all of us could learn greatly from them. I hope we do. Interesting to the gentleman's point, one of the great educational philanthropists in this country, John Walton, recently said in a roundtable that, ``In any system, if you want to increase the attention a group receives, you must increase their power. The best way to empower school children and parents is to let them direct the money.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. That is correct, and of course, that is the voluntary aspect of it, which, as you mentioned, is vitally important; but it also has engaged the parents. One of the things that we are seeing is a decided increase in Arizona among those parents who are highly satisfied with their public school experience, and we are convinced that there is a clear connection between the two because anytime that there is a motivation and incentive for parents and schools to talk, it usually creates a better environment altogether.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. There are two ways the Federal Government can return money to the States. They can appropriate money with all of these bureaucratic mandates; or they can simply say to the States, here is an idea, if you do it yourself, you will have to send less money to the Federal Government in the first place. That is what the Children's Hope Act is predicated upon. It creates an incentive for States to take care of their own efforts by empowering parents and sending less money to the Federal Government. I am convinced that this solves a lot of the problems across the board. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced we can accomplish so much if the Children's Hope Act is passed. It puts the scholarship tax credit on the radar of the States in general. It looks at what is happening in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If we can empower parents and create a new movement toward competitive education, towards competition, towards competitive excellence in education, I think we can do more for this coming generation than anything else. And I would suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) that the implications are pretty significant. Abraham Lincoln said the philosophy of today's classroom is the philosophy of tomorrow's government, and how our children grow up and the days that exist now will certainly dictate the kinds of philosophies that fill these seats across this room. I would appropriate the words of one of our predecessors of a long time ago, Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster said it this way. He said if we work on marble, it will perish. And there is a lot of marble around here. If we work on brass, time will efface it. There is a lot of brass in this place. If we rear up temples, they will crumble in the dust. But if we work upon immortal minds and imbue them with principles with the just fear of God and the love for our fellow men, we engrave on those tablets something that will brighten to all eternity. That is what it is really all about here. This is more than just a bureaucratic struggle over who has control over what happens. It is about trying to make sure that the foundations and the underpinnings of America and the great principles that have made us the greatest Nation in the history of the world remain in the hearts of the coming generations. That is certainly my belief, and I yield to the gentleman to express his perspective.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I will have to say that my first response would be that among those 21,000 children who have received scholarships, it is almost impossible to relate the wonderful anecdotal stories that you get. Parents come to me and say, my child was failing in the public situation. They just were not doing well. It was not that the schools were not a good school. It just was not the right fit for them. Sometimes we overlook that. Oftentimes there is this notion that if you are for parental empowerment that somehow you are condemning all public schools, and that is not the case at all.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, today we would like to address the House related to education. I think as all people have contemplated history and the betterment of human kind, most of the greatest leaders have recognized that some of the core hope of humanity lies in the education of its children. That is reflected by some of the words of great leaders of the past. Aristotle said, the longer I study the art of governing mankind, the more I realize that the fate of empires depends upon the education of youth. Teddy Roosevelt said, to educate a child not in line with moral capacity is to educate a menace to society. Thomas Jefferson said, the purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts. And sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that loving hearts part complicates all of our lives, because it seems today in education we focus strictly on the academics of education. We forget that the real heart of education is indeed the education of the heart. And I have to think sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that as we look across the spectrums of society and we recognize that some of the great tragedies in this world are not so much that our academics are out of kilter, but that sometimes our hearts simply have not been taught to truly respect and care about one another. And I have had the beautiful privilege of teaching a group of 1 year olds in Sunday school for the past almost 21 years. And I have seen coming generations rise up around our knees. And as I look at how they grow up in the different areas they go into in life, it becomes very obvious to me that in nearly every case if a child is given the proper opportunity, they can grasp a lot of the academics of this world; but what they need to understand is that they are indeed a miracle, that they are part of a miracle of life, and that somehow that they were put here on this earth for a purpose. And I truly believe that that is where the education of the heart comes in. But unfortunately, oftentimes in the public square in our country today, we run from the idea that parents or guardians should have any input in the foundational moral training of their children. It is left to the schools, and the schools make the decision and that is the way it is. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we make a great error in doing that. Because if a child understands that they are indeed a miracle, that they are put here on this earth for a purpose, then somehow they are part of a significant enterprise that really begs human description. Once they understand that they have that purpose, then they begin to grasp the academics. They have the motivation to learn science and math and history. They have the convictions to go out and face the challenges of life without faltering when every wind of something that would distract them in life comes along. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we really, truly need to begin to consider this entire dynamic in our educational system. As it happens, we have decried socialism across the world. In fact, we have pointed out to almost everyone that the highway of history is littered with the wreckages of Socialist governments, of governments that somehow thought that collectivism and socialism transcended that of liberty and the worth of the individual and that of a rule of law and of a republic. And if anything has demonstrated that over the last 10 to 20 years, it is the fall of the Soviet Union. It seems that socialism has been discredited across the planet in nearly every way, unfortunately except in our own school systems in America. And we have embraced the notion that government should be the one to make all of those decisions, that government should be the ones to decide the academics, that government policy should be the ones to allow the educational requirements of children and to dictate what those are. And in so doing we leave out the most important single factors in a child's life, and that is simply those people who love them more than anyone else can possibly understand, and that is their parents. And I know that there is going to be an ongoing debate in this Chamber for many, many years related to parental empowerment in education. But Mr. Speaker, unless we as a people understand that children are not wards of state, that they are the gifts of God to their parents and to the world, unless we understand that parents have more concern and more understanding about their particular children than anyone else in the world, then we will fail the coming generations. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a circumstance recently in Arizona, where I come from, where there was testimony on this very issue before the State legislature. And some of the parents groups were there, advocating that they should have a greater role in their children's education. And as it happened, the debate continued in a more heated manner. One of the bureaucratic members of government got up and said, ``Well, we love your children just as much as you do.'' He said that to one of the parents. And one of the parents very succinctly said to the bureaucrat, he says, ``All right. Tell me what are their names.'' And, of course, the bureaucrat was without an answer of any kind. And I think that that really illustrates what the bottom line here is, and that is that no public or private group can really ever understand a child's most important needs like mom and dad do. I suppose that is reflected to a large degree by the magnificent success of home schooling in America. These are some of the smartest kids in the entire Nation. And I am reminded that the Ark was built by amateurs and the Titanic was built by experts. It seems that parents, even many times without teaching degrees, are turning out the smartest children that we could imagine. And we as a society and as a Nation and as policymakers need to understand why that is true. And I, again, believe with all in my heart that it goes to the motivation of the child many times. It goes to the causing that critical curiosity that comes into the life of every child if given that opportunity. I believe parents are in a better position to know what is best for their children. And that is why one of the things that I advocated in this body for the time that I have been here has been to empower parents in education. I believe that there is probably no greater thing that we could do for our children in terms of the philosophical underpinnings of the Nation and of their ability to face the future with a sense of hope. The reality is that everywhere we have tried to empower parents, we have seen good results. We have seen it in places where there are vouchers programs. We have seen it in places where there are scholarship tax credit programs. We have seen it in places where there are school choice between the public school systems, where a child's parents can choose to put their child in this public school or the public school down the street. We have seen it anytime we empower parents to make choices, something good happens. We have seen it, as I said, in the home schools. When we empower parents, we do good things for children. It is that beautifully simple. Mr. Speaker, as it happens among those groups, among those approaches to educational choice, among those approaches to parental empowerment, the one that I believe has the very most hope in terms of a public policy outside the area of home schooling is this thing called scholarship tax credits. I was privileged to write Arizona's scholarship tax credit many years ago. And now today we scholarship 21,000 children in Arizona. And the schools they go to are entirely left up to the parents. The mechanism is very simple. The mechanism is such that if an individual on a voluntary basis chooses to contribute to a scholarship fund for children to go to a school of their parents' choice, then the contributor gets a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their income taxes. And essentially what that does, Mr. Speaker, is it calls upon the individual taxpayer to make a simple choice. Would I rather my money go to the bureaucrats or would I rather it go to children? And I have to say that is not a complicated task for many parents or many scholarship donors. They have a pretty clear perspective of which way that should happen. One of the challenges, of course, in Arizona is that we really do not have the money to put all the children that we would like to scholarship. But there are a lot of ancillary effects of this program, Mr. Speaker, one of which is that we have seen a definitive response by the government schools, by the public schools, to parental choice. We have seen that all of a sudden the schools there begin to have a much greater interest in what mom and dad have to say about education. Because they know now that mom and dad if they need to, if they choose, that they can move in a different direction, they can take their child to a different school. When you empower parents like that, you create a dynamic between public schools and parents that is vitally important to the success of both. As it happens, Mr. Chairman, about 90 percent of the parents in Arizona choose a faith-based school for their children, again being entirely up to them; but as many people would be detractors of such a choice, the reality goes back to the heart issues that we spoke of earlier. And, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the problems with integration in our schools. And if one looks at some of the private faith-based schools, they are the most integrated schools in the entire Nation. And I have to say to my colleagues that when you give parents the ability to place their children in schools of their choosing, there are such a host of wonderful things that begin to occur. First of all, competition happens for the child. All of a sudden the child that might have been just a little bottom in the chair for the system becomes royalty to everyone in the system. All of a sudden we begin to focus on the child rather than the system itself. All of a sudden parents matter, their opinions matter. Because if the schools could not respond effectively to the parents, then the parents simply have another option. All of a sudden the schools begin to say, all right, what are the dangers on this campus for children? What are the situations as far as bullying in our schools? All the things that we talk about in terms of public policy problems in the schools begin to be affected almost automatically. All of a sudden those questions begin to be taken up seriously by the administrators because they recognize that they are competing for the child in a sense. Mr. Speaker, there are so many other things I would like to add, but I see that a good friend of mine, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has come into the room. I would like to yield to Mr. Congressman Hoekstra for a moment and perhaps we can come back and discuss the issues a little bit more.