Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong disapproval with the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that barred individual States from displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses. The five justices who voted for this ruling displayed extreme hypocrisy. As they outlawed this practice, they sat directly underneath our Ten Commandments. In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court stated: ``A people unschooled in the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts of the Ten Commandments . . . '' The Ten Commandments are found more often in public buildings than in individual churches, demonstrating that Americans from all faiths and walks of life recognize their impact on our laws and culture. Yesterday's ruling sets a dangerous precedent. What is next? Are we going to remove references to God from our pledge, remove the Bible from our court proceedings, and so forth? Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to look into ways to prevent this type of abusive judicial power. I also encourage the five justices to exercise better judgment in the future.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it was my great pleasure this weekend to attend a wonderful patriotic program at Calvary Baptist Church in Winston-Salem entitled, ``Our Flag Was Still There.'' Interspersed with music and narration were reminders of times our country has been challenged and brave Americans have risen to the challenge. As we approach the Fourth of July and all the celebrations attendant to it, it was gratifying to see a major church in our area doing its part to remind us of our heritage and inspire people to pray for our country. I quote Pastor Al Gilbert: ``The flag is the symbol that has much standing behind it. Today there are thousands of men and women wearing this flag on their sleeve and standing in harm's way. We must stand behind them as they stand for what is behind the flag. We remember those who made this a great Nation and we invite you to join us in praying for the needs of our country today.'' Associate Pastor Larry White: ``You are exercising your right to celebrate and worship freely in our great country. In light of the threat to the safety and peace our country has faced in recent years and our current world condition, we especially want to honor the men and women who sacrifice that we may be sustained. We salute you and your commitment to our country.'' I am grateful to all of the folks at Calvary, and all the other churches in our country that will have similar programs this weekend, for their patriotic spirit and their prayers.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the need to strengthen Social Security. As a former president of a community college, and as a mother and grandmother, I have an obligation to ensure that our children and grandchildren are not putting their hard-earned money into a system that is going broke. Social Security is sound for today's seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be improved for younger generations. This week, my colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), laid out a good first step to help ensure that Social Security will be there for our children and grandchildren. The GROW accounts which they described would be owned by individuals. Each worker would have an account with his or her name on it, and the accounts would be assets they can leave to their loved ones as part of their estate. And for those of us who believe that Americans can spend their money better than the government can, this plan is welcome news, because when money is placed in one's own account, that money cannot be spent on other government programs. My colleagues took a great first step. I am hopeful that the Democratic leadership will soon decide their obligations to the American public go far beyond these partisan halls.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in this Special Order, we are going to focus on two things. I am first here to speak a tribute to a very good friend of mine and then I will share the rest of the hour with my colleagues. Tribute to Lois Britt

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the gentleman from Florida. He also has great passion for the issues that he is concerned about, and I am so proud to be serving with him in the 109th Congress. I agree with him that it is appropriate for us to honor our heroes, and what happened tonight is a great contrast to much that has been said recently. Mr. Speaker, I took to the Floor earlier this session to reject Democrat charges that the Republican Party is out of the mainstream. At the time I thought the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle could not be more partisan, more vitriolic, or more damaging to America's credibility abroad. I also thought that they would take their rhetoric only so far. I never thought that they would take their rhetoric so far as to put our troops in greater danger than they are already in. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say I was wrong. From the chair of the Democrat National Committee to their party leaders in Congress, something has gone terribly awry. Where are the statesmen who put country ahead of party? What happened to the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, the party of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and John F. Kennedy? Last week I was able to take my grandchildren to Arlington National Cemetery, and I can tell my colleagues that I could not read the words at the Eternal Flame spoken by President Kennedy without getting very, very emotional. I think that President Kennedy's words are so important for us to talk about tonight in light of our having talked about our soldiers who have given their lives. President Kennedy said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'' That is what the brave men and women who are now serving in our military have done. They have asked what can they do for their country. Some of them are giving the ultimate sacrifice. But, unfortunately, the party of President Kennedy and the party of these other great patriots seems to be gone. It has been replaced by the party of moveon.org and George Soros. A once proud party with a strong pedigree of ideals and values has devolved into a festering wound whose only attributes are hate and obstruction. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is some Democrats are proud of their transformation and proclaim it loudly. At a DNC gathering in New York, the chairman of the party said, ``I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not hate Howard Dean and I have never heard another single Republican say that they hate him, but we do feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for those whom he has let down, the millions of Democrats across the country whose party he leads. Mr. Speaker, unlike Dr. Dean, I do not lump all members of the opposition party together. I know there are good Democrats who possess bright ideas and patriotic souls. Some of them might even live and work in this town. And I feel for them. Their leader believes that the louder he screams, the better people will somehow be able to hear him. But I tell my colleagues this: soon, people will stop listening. Mr. Speaker, our two-party system works best when both sides bring ideas to the table and hash them out. Yes, the Majority party tends to win most, if not all the time, but that is what the voters intended. I understand this better than most, because I spent 10 years in the North Carolina General Assembly in the minority party. What is most important is that the marketplace of ideas is routinely stocked with the freshest and most visionary policies each side has to offer. I am happy to say Republicans are doing their job, but I am sorry I cannot say the same about the Democrats' leadership. Instead of policy proposals, we get blank stares. Instead of negotiation, we get obstruction. Instead of dialogue, we get rhetoric. And I truly wish this were not the case, because now is a time of great responsibility. Now more than ever we need a Congress that is serious about preparing this Nation for the challenges of the century ahead. And, Mr. Speaker, while Republicans are happy to continue passing our solution-oriented agenda, I truly wish we had a partner in the Democratic Party. How much more vibrant would our political discourse be if we could speak civilly with each other? How much more fruitful would this Congress be? Nowhere is this clearer than the issue of Social Security. We all know that reforming America's most honored program is more than a hot topic around here; it is the premier domestic issue of our day. And so you would think that all honest attempts at reform would be met at the very least with openmindedness and a desire to discuss, but not so. When a member of the Democratic caucus offered his plan to reform Social Security, his own leadership chastised him for even bringing an idea and signaling a willingness to talk with Republicans. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for Democrats to criticize Republican policies. It is another for them to reprimand one of their own for simply introducing an idea. While I certainly do not agree with the policies proposed in the gentleman's legislation, I applaud him for bucking his party's reticence. He put the needs of the American people before politics. For that he should be commended; and for their condemnation of action, the Democrats should be ashamed. For what is the purpose of this body but to debate solutions to problems and then choose the very best among them? And that, Mr. Speaker, is just what House Republicans have been doing. My colleagues have given you a long list of accomplishments in this session of Congress. We have proposed an agenda with solutions that are reaping results. I am happy to say that on many of the most important issues of the day, a large number of rank-and-file Democrats have joined us, despite the reluctance of their leadership. In 5 short months, the House has passed landmark legislation addressing everything from our roads and highways to the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, we have heard on numerous occasions from the minority leadership that bills are being railroaded through, that substitutes are not being allowed, that rules are closed too often. You have heard already how most of our bills have had Democratic votes. And nothing could be further from the truth that our rules are closed. And I might also add that Democrats are being treated a great deal better than they treated Republicans when we were in the minority. When Democrats controlled the House, Republicans were often denied the right to offer motions to recommit. For those unfamiliar with that term, it is the last chance for the minority to attach an amendment to a bill under consideration by the full House. When Republicans took control of the House, we changed the rules so that the minority always has the opportunity to offer the motion to recommit. We have enacted rules governing debate on legislation that have allowed for numerous Democratic amendments and substitutes. We responded to demands for greater access to legislative information and have granted nearly every request of the minority. Yet the Democratic leadership continues to use abuse of power as a campaign issue. I ask the American people to examine the facts, and I also ask the American people to contrast the Republican record of achievement with the Democratic record of obstruction, obtuseness, and obliviousness. I mentioned earlier that when I last took to the floor to discuss these matters, I thought the Democratic leadership could not be further out to sea when it comes to the most important issues facing the Nation. Well, it now seems they are somewhere between the Bermuda Triangle and the Lost City of Atlantis. You know, Mr. Speaker, I just do not think the leaders of the Democratic Party here in Washington get it. It has been 4 years since our homeland was attacked, and they still cannot distinguish friend from foe, and patriot from terrorist. From the comments made by members of the Democratic leadership in both bodies, it is clear that they are not connected with the realities of the war on terror. One said, and I quote, ``the war is unwinnable.'' Another compared our men and women in uniform to Soviets and their gulags, unquote. And yet another, perhaps most egregiously compared Operation Iraqi Freedom which brought an end to Saddam's ethnic cleansing to the Holocaust. He said, the war, and I quote, is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed, unquote. Mr. Speaker, I struggle for the words to respond to such comments. The Washington Democratic establishment is simply adrift at a time when our Nation is at war and preparing for the next great American century. It is sad that they are not a part of that preparation. And it is deplorable that in some cases they are actively campaigning against it. I hope that soon things will change. And I hope it happens before the Democratic Party is lost once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the comments that were made by my colleagues tonight outlining the very major successes that have occurred in the 109th Congress already. Along with my colleagues, I came to Washington to get things done. I long for a time when the Democratic leadership will come to the table and work with Republicans to make policy that has the best interests of the American people at heart.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), who has come into this Congress along with me and whom I have come to appreciate so much for his leadership and insights.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake), who also came in with this freshman class and represents the Second District of Virginia.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for her comments, and I want to tell her that I am as distressed about this ruling as she is. I think that the people of this country are very concerned with activist courts and are very concerned at where the country is going as far as judicial rulings, and I want to join her in doing whatever we possibly can legislatively to stop this kind of action from being taken. She is absolutely right. It is one of our most fundamental rights, the right to private property, and it is one of the things that has made this country so great. So I look forward to her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), someone I have come to know and admire tremendously, who represents the 25th District of Florida, for his wisdom on the issues we are discussing tonight.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of a true leader and my friend, Anne Lois Britt. On June 4, just 3 weeks ago, Lois Britt passed away in her sleep. Not only did her family lose a devoted and caring matriarch but Lois' passing marked a serious loss for my State. Lois' first love was to her family and grandchildren, Ralph and Luke, but she loved and treated the betterment of rural North Carolina like it was her second family. She touched the lives of so many, and words cannot express what she meant to those around her. Throughout her nearly 50-year career, Lois was able to work for, and with, the things she loved--her family, people, education, agriculture, and Duplin County. Lois was born and reared in Duplin County, North Carolina. Duplin County is in the rural eastern part of North Carolina. However, Lois could see from an early age, if given just a few resources, the citizens of Duplin County could do and achieve wonderful things. She was determined to improve the lives of everyone she knew, and she knew almost everybody. So after earning her bachelor's degree from East Carolina University and graduating from North Carolina State with a master's degree in adult education, she returned home to begin her life's work. Once back in Duplin, she started with the extension service, working in 4-H, home economics and community development. For more than 33 years, she helped mold 4-H'ers, families, and coworkers into positive, productive citizens. To put into perspective how much she meant to the 4-H community, I would like to tell you a story I heard from one of her closest friends. It is customary in North Carolina to have one large family Bible that you keep records, newspaper clippings, and any general memorabilia about your family. One common item usually found in Duplin County family Bibles was the children's 4-H certificates. For 33 years, Lois Britt signed every single 4-H certificate awarded. You see, Lois was a part of everyone's family in some way or another. Countless people in Duplin County credit Lois and the skills they gained under her 4-H and extension leadership for the success they have enjoyed in life. While she was doing what God had put her on earth to do, helping others, Lois' career began to take off. In 1976, she was promoted to county extension director. She held this position for 14 years and was the first woman in North Carolina's history to serve in that capacity. After leaving the county extension in 1990, she worked until 2000 with Murphy Family Farms as vice president for public relations. Additionally, she was a member of the board of the North Carolina Pork Council and was vice president of the National Pork Producers Council. It was through her work in pork and agriculture that Lois and I first became friends. We worked together in the North Carolina State Senate and here in the House of Representatives on a number of projects to improve and bolster the pork industry in our home State. We did not always see eye to eye on every issue, but I always knew where she stood and I admired her for that. It was during her time with Murphy Brown Farms and the North Carolina Pork Council that Lois became a national spokesperson for her industry. She gained national notoriety in her field as an effective and creative leader. People looked up to Lois and respected what she had to say. Although she never ran for public office, I suspect Lois could have held any elected position she wanted due to her leadership, compassion, and understanding of complicated issues. While moving the agribusiness sector of North Carolina forward, Lois became heavily involved with North Carolina State University. She served on the University of North Carolina board of governors and had been appointed to the chancellor's board of visitors for North Carolina State University. In fact, one of the easiest decisions I ever made in the State Senate was to vote for Lois Britt for board of governors. Along with her distinguished professional career, Lois was awarded and achieved many honors in her successful life. Awards such as the North Carolina Pork Council Hall of Fame, North Carolina 4-H Lifetime Achievement Award, the North Carolina State University Watauga Medal, the 2003 Volunteer Service Award from the National Agricultural Alumni and Development Association, and the 2002 Distinguished Alumnus for Agriculture from the North Carolina State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences are just a few of the awards and achievements bestowed upon Lois. If I read them all to you, we would be here till next week. As you can see, Lois Britt meant the world to her family, her community and the State of North Carolina. Lois had a history of helping people solve problems that arise from our need to be good stewards of the land. She built systems that allow our youth, families and communities to plan and execute productive agribusiness enterprises. She was a great mother and a great friend. I am pleased that her son Ralph, his wife Suzanne, and Lois' sister Gail have traveled to Washington to join me in celebrating the life of their loved one. They traveled to D.C. to be a part of this tribute, along with many other of Lois' closest friends. I was also honored to be a part of her life. Although Lois is no longer with us physically, we can rest easy knowing she is reunited with her husband and is teaching somewhere in heaven. May God bless her soul. Mr. Speaker, a group of us is here tonight to bring some perspectives to many things that have been said in the past few weeks by leaders and members of the Democratic Party. I want to recognize first, Representative Marsha Blackburn who represents the Seventh District of Tennessee, and then Representative Kenny Marchant who represents the 24th District of Texas. I will then speak very briefly and then recognize the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) who is here. Let me please turn the floor over to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to the ill-timed and ill-conceived remarks by the Democratic Senator. The Senator's deplorable comparison of American servicemen and women at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi Soviet gulags and to Pol Pot are injurious to our military and provide a propaganda victory to our enemy. Sadly, the words of this United States Senator now serve to give aid and comfort to Islamic terrorists. The senior Senator from Illinois seems to have taken poetic license with whatever document he has failed to produce as evidence of his allegations. The brave men and women of America's military put their lives on the line each day to meet the demands of Gitmo's prisoners. These al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are being treated consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions and, most importantly, yet seemingly overlooked by some Democrats, consistent with military necessity. Intelligence gained at Gitmo has and will continue to prevent terrorist attacks and help save American lives. I am hopeful that certain Democratic Senators will quit being a part of the problem and start being part of the solution. Because of Gitmo, the U.S. is learning organizational structure of terrorist groups, the extent of terrorist presence in the world, Al Qaeda's pursuit of WMDs, methods of recruitment and location of centers, terrorist skill-sets, and how seemingly legitimate financial operations are used to disguise and fund terrorist operations.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his service and this bill. I had some prepared remarks, but I have got to respond to the last speaker who talked about CEDAW. It seems to me that that is a perfect example of what is wrong with the United Nations and our funding the United Nations. What a joke CEDAW is. We are the only industrialized country that has not signed that treaty. Women do better here than anyplace in the world. There is no person who supports equal rights for women more than I do, and I think that CEDAW is a joke because of those who have supported it, look at how they treat women. As Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure accountability of each and every American taxpayer dollar that goes to the United Nations. From the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, to its lack of action with respect to the genocide in Darfur, to the horrendous human rights abuses by U.N. peacekeeping staff during their mission in the Congo, what did they care about CEDAW. The U.N. is rife with fraud and abuse and needs reform. Two of the most important items this bill requires are to direct the U.S. permanent representative to aggressively pursue a definition of terrorism and to mandate that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on any human rights body. The U.N. counts some of the world's leading human rights violators and state sponsors of terrorism among its membership and even taps many of them to be in leadership positions on its subcommittees. This is outrageous and ironic. Let us empower our new ambassador to the U.N. and the administration with reforms that have some teeth and will effect change. The United Nations' reputation of being a credible and effective international peacekeeping body has been tarnished. It is no wonder so many Americans question the efficacy and the very necessity of the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and bill and thank Mr. Hyde for his service and this bill. The United Nations Charter includes some very laudable goals, but when the rubber meets the road, the U.N. has failed miserably to put these ideals into practice, especially in recent years. As a founding member of the U.N. and a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, we have a duty to insist on a higher standard. And as Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure accountability of each and every American taxpayer dollar that goes to the U.N. From the U.N. Oil for Food program to its lack of action with respect to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan to the horrendous human rights abuses by U.N. peacekeeping staff during their mission in the Congo, the U.N. is rife with fraud and abuse and needs reform. This bill includes a call for certifiable reforms including: Shifting 18 programs from the regular assessed budget to voluntary funded programs so their funding would not be automatic; all new programs started by the U.N. to include sunsetting provisions; cuts and streamlining in the funding for the 15,484 conferences and scheduled meetings that occurred in 2004 and 2005, some of which cost $7-8,000 per hour; creation of an ethics office to provide oversight over the U.N. budget and financial disclosure form. And two of the most important items this bill requires are to direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to aggressively pursue a definition of terrorism and to mandate that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on any human rights body. The U.N. counts some of the world's leading human rights violators and state sponsors of terrorism among its membership and even taps many of them to be in leadership positions on its subcommittees. This is completely outrageous and dangerously ironic. Let us empower our new ambassador to the U.N. and the administration with reforms that have some teeth and will effect change. The United Nations' reputation of being a credible and effective, international peacekeeping body has been sorely tarnished. It is no wonder so many Americans question the efficacy and the very necessity of the United Nations.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend one of the finest citizens in North Carolina's Fifth District, Mr. Norman Cheek. As the owner of Toyota of Boone, Norman is famous throughout northwest North Carolina for being the ``Little Dealer With a Big Heart.'' I could not think of a more fitting description for this wonderful man. Norman is one of the most thoughtful and caring people I have ever had the privilege of getting to know. Recently he was recognized by the North Carolina National Guard for being a top business supporter. He spent countless hours spearheading an effort to collect food, supplies, and games for local troops serving in Iraq. In addition, Norman has worked hard to keep local high school students safe. He has raised well over half a million dollars during the past 16 years for Project Graduation, a drug- and alcohol-free celebration for high school seniors. Since the project started, there have been no fatalities on graduation night. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to acknowledge Norman Cheek and a privilege to recognize June 15, 2005, as Norman Cheek Day in North Carolina's Fifth District.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the grand opening of the DearHaven Therapeutic Riding Center located in Glade Valley, North Carolina, and to pay my respects to a woman whose dream of helping the disabled has finally come to fruition. Susan Billings had a dream. She wanted to help people with disabilities find meaning in life by riding horses. This unique form of therapy improves flexibility, balance and muscle strength while increasing confidence in the disabled. In order to build DearHaven, Susan and her husband sold their home and devoted nearly all their time and resources to building the center. They assembled a board of directors and found their first clients. Sadly, however, Susan never saw the final outcome of her dream. She passed away in a tragic automobile accident last November. She left behind a loving husband, two parents, four children, two stepchildren, and her dream for the DearHaven Therapeutic Riding Center. Even though Susan passed away, her loved ones refused to let her dream die. The tragedy caused the community to unite in a way almost unimaginable. Following Susan's funeral, hours of free labor, monetary donations, and supplies came from every direction. The center was projected to cost $118,000, but due to the generosity of the community, ended up costing closer to $20,000. One of the great tragedies in our society occurs when a person who has lived a long life lies on their deathbed and wonders if their life had meaning. Susan Billings did not have to wonder this. She may have not lived what many consider to be a long life. But she touched many people in a way that will never be forgotten. May God bless Susan Billings, her family and friends, and the DearHaven Therapeutic Riding Centers.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work this body undertook last night by passing the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act. This bill took an important step toward helping the farmers of America and my district in North Carolina. Farmers are the backbone of our communities, and we must provide the resources they need. My colleagues and I worked hard to exercise fiscal restraint on this bill without cutting those programs crucial to helping farmers. I feel strongly the bill we passed yesterday did just that. I would also like to thank this body for voting to uphold a provision that delays the country-of-origin labeling process until it can be dealt with correctly, through current proposed legislation. This delay will allow my colleagues and me on the House Committee on Agriculture time to complete our work on H.R. 2068, the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte). H.R. 2068 will establish a market-driven, cost-effective, voluntary COOL program for meat such as beef, poultry and pork.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a unique historic home located in Kernersville in North Carolina's fifth district. It is called Korner's Folly. Some folks call Korner's Folly the strangest house ever built. Others say they are amazed at its resemblance to a small castle one would more likely find on the banks of the Rhine River. Everyone is certain that few houses equal its unique nature. Upon entering the building, one walks past the ``witch's corner'' which is complete with fireplace and chimney. Soon, however, one learns that he or she is welcome as the house is square with entrances on each side for visitors to come and go as they wish. Built first as a carriage house with stables, bachelor's quarters and studio, Korner's Folly stands proudly on Main Street in Kernersville, North Carolina. It was built by Jules Gilmer Korner, an artist and interior designer, who is credited with painting Bull Durham Tobacco signs in many areas of the country. Although 1880 is given as the completion date, Mr. Korner's zeal for decorating and altering the house is evident. The stables were soon turned into a library. The reception, or ballroom, on an upper level with a 20-foot ceiling is decorated with fresco-type pictures and features two magnificent fireplaces. At the very top, one is amazed to find a theater named Cupid's Park for the paintings of cherubs on the ceiling. With 22 rooms, which have ceiling heights from under 6 feet to over 20 feet, a tour brings many surprises and attests to the creativity of the builder. This unique building was saved from deterioration in 1971 by a group of public-spirited Kernersville citizens who purchased it and began the process of preservation and restoration. They understood the importance of preserving this unique building as the cornerstone for tourism in the town of Kernersville. They later gave it to the North Carolina Historical Preservation Society which organized Korner's Folly, Incorporated, in order to continue its preservation. The home now serves as a wonderful museum and a great place to visit. As the words inscribed on the sidewalk by Mr. Korner say, ``Come in, you are at home.'' I am proud that Korner's Folly is located in Kernersville, North Carolina, and in the Fifth Congressional District which I now represent.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Triad Today for being awarded the Spectrum of Democracy Award for Responsible Election Coverage by the North Carolina Center For Voter Education. The program is aired in the Fifth Congressional District on Sinclair Broadcasting's WXLV/WUPN station covering the Winston-Salem/ Greensboro/High Point metropolitan area. Triad Today was created October 2003 by veteran television broadcaster, author, and columnist Jim Longworth. It is the Piedmont Triad's only local television talk show. Its guests have included Senators and Congressmen, mayors and sports celebrities like Richard Petty. But most of the time it serves the community by disseminating information about the issues that matter the most to the community, like health care, public safety, and government. But it was another kind of public service for which Triad Today was recently recognized. During the 2004 election cycle, Jim Longworth distributed free blocks of air time on his show to scores of congressional and gubernatorial candidates. His action helped raise citizen awareness of candidates and issues and encouraged more people to participate in the political process. For this, Mr. Longworth and Triad Today were awarded the Spectrum of Democracy Award. Mr. Speaker, the press has a responsibility to fulfill its role as the fourth estate, that is, to serve as a guardian of democracy and defender of the public interest. I am pleased to congratulate Triad Today for its outstanding commitment to keeping the community informed.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put the lie to House Democrat rhetoric. The Democrat leadership, from Howard Dean to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), claim that House Republicans are out of the mainstream. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we are out of the mainstream, they are swimming downriver in some backwoods tributary. From a parent's right to know what their children are doing, to protecting citizens across the country from the growing threat of gang violence, the House Democrat leadership is simply out to lunch. Eight pieces of landmark legislation that passed this House with strong support from rank-and-file Democrats, and still the minority leadership refuses to see the light. On every one of these important bills, the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) chose to vote against legislation that the vast majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, approve of. Bankruptcy reform, 73 Democrats voted for it, but Leader Pelosi did not. Class action reform, 50 Democrats voted for it, but Leader Pelosi did not. The Gang Deterrence and Protection Act of 2005, 71 Democrats voted for it, but Leader Pelosi did not. A new energy policy for America, 41 Democrats voted for it, and, you guessed it, Leader Pelosi did not. Protecting a parent's right to know before their daughter has an abortion, 54 Democrats voted for it, and Leader Pelosi did not. It is as simple as this, Mr. Speaker. The House Democrat leadership is engaged in a strategy designed to do one and only one thing: prevent any and all action sponsored by Republicans from becoming law. Their obstruction of House Republicans' solutionist agenda shows just how far out of the mainstream they really are. Mr. Speaker, it would be one thing if House Democrats tried to block legislation based on policy disagreements, but it is quite another for them to block legislation based on politics. And that, Mr. Speaker, is just what they are doing. Democrats believe they can win at the ballot box by obstructing, and they would rather win the next election than move America forward. Make no mistake: the votes I just spoke about are telling. Rank-and-file Democrats, those who believe what is best for America is more important than election politics, are brave in their defiance of their leaders. They understand that simply being the Democrat Party of No will not increase our security, build our economy, or create jobs. If you need more proof, just look at retirement security. Republicans, led by President Bush, have the foresight to address the looming crisis facing tomorrow's retirees. We know that sometime in the near future, our Social Security system will be bankrupt. If we do not make tough decisions now, future Americans will have to make even tougher ones. But Democrats just do not see a problem. Or is it that they would rather pretend there is not one? When President Bush announced his intention to reform Social Security, he and other Republicans crossed the country to engage the American people in dialogue. He declared that nothing was off the table and signaled his willingness to consider any and all options. The Democrat response: refusal to come to the negotiating table. One poll shows that by 61 percent to 29 percent Americans under 40 say that Social Security needs to be fixed. At the same time, many in the minority stick to their head-in-the-sand argument that there is no problem. Democrat leaders are not only out of the American mainstream, but are also out of the Democratic mainstream. Yet they have the gumption to accuse Republicans of being out of touch. The American people must not buy into the Democrat rhetoric. They are doing a lot of talking. But do not confuse activity for achievement. What tangible results can the minority point to? The answer is none. They have no agenda. They have no vision and they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues we face as a Nation. Democrats, not Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are the ones who are out of the mainstream.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Goode amendment. The terrorist attacks on our homeland highlighted the potential disastrous effects of porous borders and the need to bolster border security. While we continue to fight the war on terror overseas, we cannot neglect our homeland and must increase our efforts at fighting terrorism at home by controlling immigration and strengthening our borders. The defense authorization bill we are considering today makes excellent progress in setting funding levels for our troops and staging the war on terror overseas, but cannot and should not neglect our borders here at home. The Goode amendment will protect terrorists, illegal immigrants, and drug traffickers from entering the country. Mr. Chairman, border security cannot be taken too seriously. I urge my colleagues to support the Goode amendment so we can continue fighting terror in the streets of Baghdad and in the mountains of Afghanistan rather than in our cities and communities. We must increase our efforts at achieving closed borders with open, guarded doors. The Goode amendment helps accomplish that goal and supplements the greater objectives of the national defense authorization bill we are considering today. Without the Goode amendment, the authorization bill is incomplete and its goals are unmet. In fighting the war on terror overseas, we have made our Nation and indeed the whole world a much safer place. Let us make sure we continue to build on that historic progress by protecting our homeland and defending our borders, when necessary. Vote for the Goode amendment and for the passage of the defense authorization bill.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Davis amendment. Military treatment centers which are dedicated to healing, nurturing and saving life should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the womb. This amendment is a barely germane, blatant distraction from the important bill we are considering today. The amendment would mandate that Federal dollars be used to fund abortions, and contradicts fundamental U.S. military values such as honor, courage, and taking responsibility for one's own actions. Mr. Chairman, as stewards of hard-working Americans' tax dollars, we cannot ask our constituents to fund the killing of human life on our military installations. Life does begin at conception, and it is sacred. As Members of Congress, we should do all we can to protect life. Instead, while we stand here today to fund our troops and protect our great Nation, opportunist Members of the Democratic Party are once again belittling and devaluing the sanctity of human life. If this inappropriate amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to provide abortion on demand, but resources could be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. That is right. Instead of hiring new personnel to operate tanks, fly planes, fight insurgents, train coalition forces, treat troops and defend America, this amendment asks taxpayers to pay new personnel to perform abortions and kill human fetuses. Mr. Chairman, that is despicable. This amendment must be defeated so we can return to the meaningful consideration of the national defense authorization bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting human life by voting against the Davis amendment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as stewards of hard-working Americans' tax dollars, we cannot ask our constituents to fund the killing of human embryos. Like the rest of my colleagues joining me today, I am strongly in support of scientific research to save and improve human life. But to fund Federal research on stem cells derived from killing human embryos is unethical and irresponsible. While stem cell research has never been prohibited in the private sector, President Bush permitted the usage of embryonic stem cell lines sufficient for extensive government-funded research nearly 4 years ago. In these 4 years, government and private research on those stem cells have produced nothing, cured no one; and there is no indication that that will change. In the meantime, ethical research not derived from embryos in the public and private sectors has helped cure almost 60 diseases. The private sector has proven the superiority and promise of cord blood in adult stem cell research by choosing to fund those areas. Let us learn from their example and not squander taxpayer dollars on unethical research. Mr. Speaker, we do have the power of the purse, and we cannot misuse it by funding the slaughter of human life.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise the President and Republicans in this Congress for working to strengthen the economy and cut unnecessary spending. This is not rocket science or advanced economics. When we leave more money in the hands of citizens, the economy thrives. Case in point: 274,000 new jobs were created in April. We have seen steady job gains for each of the last 23 months, and more Americans are working than ever before. In addition, our Federal deficit is forecast to be $50 billion lower than expected. Clearly, the economy's growth is a direct result of the pro-growth agenda of the President and this Congress. By holding the line on fiscal responsibility in the budget and passing pro-growth bills such as the death tax repeal and the energy bill, Republican Members continue to show their commitment to America's economy. The House has begun the appropriation season with Republicans working hard to display fiscal responsibility, just as we have been doing through out the session. We have reformulated the allocation process for Homeland Security funding so we can make sure these funds are not wasted and are used properly. This Congress and this President are working hard and doing great work. Unfortunately, not enough focus is being put on the positive things happening in the world and in our country. Let us not squander this opportunity to keep stepping in the right direction.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlemen from Texas and Michigan for their eloquent words on behalf of this bill. I am truly honored to be here today, Mr. Speaker. I am honored because the mere consideration of this bill represents the greatness of our republican democracy. At this time a year ago, I only dreamed of coming to the floor of this House and working for the people of the Fifth Congressional District in North Carolina. Here I am today promoting a bill I wrote to help those very constituents who deserve it most. Just a few months ago, the father of Army Specialist Michael Hensley from my district in Clemmons, North Carolina, contacted me with a problem that his son and many of our other brave soldiers are facing. My constituent, Specialist Hensley, wanted to do the responsible thing by making the maximum allowable contribution to his individual retirement account, but found out that because of the nature of his wages, he would not be able to contribute to his nest egg this year. Thanks to the Republican leadership of this House and the bipartisan support from the minority, we stand here this afternoon to solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, our current Tax Code wrongfully prohibits many of our brave men and women serving in combat zones from taking advantage of individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. Most soldiers serving in these combat zones are paid in wages designated as military hazard pay. As deployment times have grown longer and longer, many soldiers now serve entire calendar years overseas, making their yearly compensation consist of hazard pay exclusively. These wages are not taxed; nor should they be. However, since this compensation is nontaxable, the wages are not eligible for IRA contributions. This is entirely unfair. As we all know, IRAs are an excellent tool for responsible retirement savings, and responsible retirement savings should be encouraged for everyone, but especially for those who take up arms in war zones and fight for our freedom. The men and women defending America in harm's way overseas should not be excluded from fully participating in the important retirement investment opportunity that IRAs provide because of a glitch in our Tax Code. H.R. 1499, the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities, or HERO Act, will correct this serious injustice. The HERO Act simply designates combat hazard pay earned by a member of the Armed Forces as eligible for contribution to retirement accounts. The legislation, which is endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association and the Military Officers Association of America, would not actually tax these wages, it would merely allow them to be invested in the same retirement accounts available to all Americans. To quote the Military Officers Association of America in their letter of support for the bill, ``This change makes perfect sense in view of all we are asking our service members to do in the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.'' I could not have said it better myself. Mr. Speaker, our heroes defending America overseas certainly deserve the same access to retirement savings that we receive. In fact, we should be encouraging and even facilitating retirement savings whenever possible. Americans need to take responsibility for and control of their retirement. Those responsible enough to save their hard-earned wages should be rewarded, not burdened with taxes and regulations. I would like to thank our Republican Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), as well as the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for recognizing the importance of this bill and for expeditiously bringing it to the floor of this House. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for his service to our Nation in Vietnam, for his excellent leadership of the House Committee on Armed Services, and for cosponsoring and supporting this great bill. His commitment to our troops is to be applauded. A special thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson) for his 29 years of service to our Nation, and for his cosponsorship of this bill and his assistance in the Committee on Ways and Means to bring the bill to the floor. He recognized immediately that this is a common-sense solution. Lastly, I would like to thank my staff members, especially Bob Honald and Deana Funderburk for their support and effort to get a good idea transformed to good legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to help right this fundamental wrong by voting for this straightforward, common-sense legislation.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and commend President Bush and the Committee on Implementation of Textile Agreements for recently implementing safeguards against Chinese imports of cotton shirts, cotton trousers, and cotton and man-made fiber underwear. Since the lifting of quotas by the WTO in January, shorts, trousers, and underwear, which represent more textile jobs than any other sector in America, have been under attack due to the flood of Chinese imports currently coming into our country. This fast action will save thousands of textile jobs in this country and in my district. However, Mr. Speaker, I was disheartened to hear the comments on the safeguard sanctions made by the spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. He said in a statement that China believes its exports of cotton knit shirts, trousers, and man-made underwear have not disrupted the U.S. market. I think a 1,573 percent increase and a 1,277 percent increase in the first 3 months of this year constitute a market disruption. Let me repeat, those numbers are for the first 3 months of the year. Think what would happen if we did not implement the China safeguards. The Ministry of Commerce went on to say, The U.S. decision runs counter to the World Trade Organization's agreements on trade of textile and apparel products and deviates from the WTO spirit of free trade. I took specific note of this statement because China's idea of fair trade is government subsidies of its textile and apparel exports to the United States, currency manipulation, export tax rebates, forgiveness of loans by its government banks, and direct payments to its State- owned textile and apparel industry. Fortunately, the rest of the world does not think like the Chinese. I applaud Secretary Gutierrez and his panel for helping to level the playing field for our domestic textile and manufacturing.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening because I fear that a number of good people will make a bad decision in the coming weeks. What is worse is I fear they will be making this decision based on a plethora of false information, and that is why I am here this evening. There is an abundance of misinformation, exaggeration, and blatant lies being spread by interest groups regarding the prospects for embryonic stem cell research. The first misconception is that embryonic stem cell research is not legal. The fact is, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. Research on embryonic stem cells has taken place for years. But what has this research produced? Nothing. While adult stem cells have treated over 58 diseases in human patients, embryonic stem cells have not treated even one patient. Adult stem cells have had success in treating debilitating and fatal illnesses without compromising ethical standards. Embryonic stem cells have treated nothing while, at the same time, destroying human life. So why in the world would anyone support the unethical, failed use of embryonic stem cells instead of the ethical, successful use of adult stem cells? Because they do not know the difference. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I want to share some very important information tonight. If and when the American public learns the scientific facts, and I want to stress ``scientific facts'' regarding stem cell research, the ethical questions will not matter as much. Now, I had the good fortune today to hear a talk by Dr. Robert P. George, who is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence in the Department of Politics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. Not all of the information that I am sharing with you tonight came from Dr. George, but he gave an outstanding talk sponsored by the Wilberforce Forum as a part of the Majority Leader's lecture series, 2005. The title of his talk was ``Embryonic Stem Cells: Ethical Boundaries, and Possible Ways Forward.'' I want to use some material that I have also received related to the definition of stem cells, and some of the research that has been produced in this area by Dr. Tadeusz Pachotczyk who has done post doctoral work at Massachusetts General Hospital at Harvard Medical School after he earned his PhD in neuroscience from Yale University. What is a stem cell? I used to teach, and I always believed that you start with the basics when you are teaching. So let us start with the definition. What is a stem cell? A stem cell is essentially a blank cell capable of becoming another, more differentiated cell-type in the body, such as a skin cell, a muscle cell or a nerve cell. Why are stem cells important? Stem cells can be used to replace or heal damaged tissues in cells in the body. There are two broad classes of stem cells. The two basic types of stem cells are embryonic type and adult type. Embryonic stem cells and embryonic germ cells make up the embryonic type. Umbilical cord stem cells, placental stem cells, and adult stem cells make up the adult type. Now, where do embryonic-type stem cells come from? They come from embryos. Embryonic stem cells are obtained by harvesting living embryos which are generally five to seven days old. The removal of embryonic stem cells invariably results in the destruction of the embryo. Another type of stem cell called an embryonic germ cell can be obtained from either miscarriages or aborted fetuses. Now, where do adult type stem cells come from? They come from umbilical chords, placentas, and amniotic fluid. Adult-type stem cells can be derived from various pregnancy-related tissues, or they come from adult tissues. In adults, stem cells are present within various tissues and organ systems. These include the bone marrow, liver, epidermis, retina, skeletal muscle, intestine, brain, dental pulp, and elsewhere. Even fat obtained from liposuction has been shown to contain significant numbers of adult-type stem cells, and I am going to refrain from making any jokes about that tonight. Cadavers. Neural stem cells have been removed from specific areas in post-mortem, human brains as late as 20 hours following death. Now, there are people who believe that embryonic stem cells have a great deal more to offer than adult stem cells. Let me say a little bit about what embryonic stem cells bring that adult stem cells do not. They do seem to be very flexible and to have the potential to make any cell. And, there is a lot of availability, so we are told, with embryonic stem cells from in vitro fertilization clinics, although there is some debate about exactly how many there are. What are some of the disadvantages of embryonic stem cells? They are very difficult to differentiate uniformly and homogeneously into a target tissue. It is extremely difficult to get them to do exactly what we want them to do. Immunogenic. Embryonic stem cells from a random embryo donor are likely to be rejected after transplantation. They just do not work as well. They are capable of forming tumors or promoting tumor formation. This is one of the major drawbacks of embryonic stem cells. And, of course, the most important disadvantage of embryonic stem cells is that they result in the destruction of human life. Now, let us talk a little bit about the advantages of adult stem cells. Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cords have been isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type. They are already somewhat specialized, so inducing them to go into a certain area may be much simpler. They are not immunogenic; recipients who receive the products of their own stem cells will not experience immune reaction. This is extremely important. Relative ease of procurement. Some adult stem cells are easy to harvest: the skin, muscle, marrow, fat, while others may be more difficult to obtain, brain stem cells. Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily available. More and more people are being encouraged now, when they have babies, to save the umbilical and placental cells and store them for possible later use. Adult stem cells tend not to form tumors. And there is absolutely no harm done to the donor when we harvest adult stem cells. Now, what are the disadvantages? Let us be fair. There are some. There is a limited quantity of them. They can sometimes be difficult to obtain in large numbers. They may not live as long as embryonic stem cells in a culture. And they may be a little bit less flexible, with the exception again of bone marrow and umbilical cord ones. Now, why are adult stem cells preferable to embryonic stem cells? Adult stem cells are a natural solution. They naturally exist in our bodies, and they provide a natural repair mechanism for many tissues of our bodies. They belong in a microenvironment of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells belong in the microenvironment of the early embryo, not in an adult body where they tend to cause tumors and immune system reactions. Most importantly, adult stem cells have already been successfully used in human therapies for many years. And let me just say, some of the therapies that adult stem cells have been used for, they have treated brain cancer. Embryonic stem cells have not. Adult stem cells have treated breast cancer, they have treated ovarian cancer, adult stem cells have treated testicular cancer. Embryonic stem cells have not. Adult stem cells have treated leukemia, Crone's disease, anemia, stroke, Parkinson's disease. Embryonic stem cells have not been able to treat any of these diseases, not any of them. It is really important that people understand the difference in the two types of cells. I support the President's position on what to do with embryonic stem cells. I think the President has come up with a very carefully thought-out position on this issue. And this is where we need to stay. The people who are pushing the use of embryonic stem cells say they want something to salvage from the cryo stage because they will be destroyed or kept in limbo. That does not have to happen. Once we begin to use embryonic stem cells for treatment, we are crossing the Rubicon in terms of ethical issues. We cross an ethical barrier when we do that because we are destroying one life for another. Those embryos are human beings and should not be treated as research subjects. We would never kill to harvest body parts because of the principle of human dignity. We do not even do this with our most heinous criminals. We do not treat them as things. We treat them with dignity until the time that they die. We have a terrible situation with people promoting the destruction of embryos for stem cell research. And I thought it would be interesting tonight to remind us of what the Declaration of Independence says. This is the Declaration of Independence that unfortunately too few young people read or understand in our society anymore. And I will just read the beginning of it: ``When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'' And this is the part of the Declaration that if anybody knows the Declaration of Independence at all, this is the part that they know: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. It is extremely important that we not lose sight of what founded this country, and the basic principle of life which is enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. We have to come down to understanding what is a human being. Scientists will say that an embryo is a human being. It is internally self-directed. And I want to say some more about that. Because what happens with an embryo is nobody has to do anything to it from the outside. It is a human being at the embryonic stage. And it internally self-directs itself to grow and to develop into a person that then is born after the cells divide and divide and divide. We are not talking about a religious issue only. For some people this is a fundamental religious issue, and it should be. But it is also a scientific issue. All human beings have profound human dignity. And, again, never, never in our society have we stooped so low as to sacrifice some human beings for others. There is not a single therapeutic trial going on in the United States right now using embryonic cells, no clinical trial. There are lots and lots and lots of trials going on using adult cells. There is private money going into this research, but the President has said we will not use government money; we will not tax the people of this country, many of whom are so opposed to this issue to do something which they find so abhorrent. Now, there is money going into research. Private money. Where is that money going? It is going into the research for adult cells. That should tell us a lot. People think that that is where the payoff is going to be. People do not invest their money in things that they do not think is going to pay off. And it is very, very important that we not be persuaded to use government money, our money, taxpayers' money to go into something that not only holds very, very little promise for any kind of results, but is so abhorrent again to so many of our people. Now, I want to share with you some success stories about adult stem cell research. Laura Dominguez had a spinal cord injury. As a result of a car accident in 2001, she broke her neck and was paralyzed from the chest down. She was treated with a mix of adult stem cells and other cells obtained from olfactory tissues inside her own nose. The cells were transplanted across the injury site and her damaged spinal cord; and several months after the surgery, she was able to move her foot. She now walks with braces. Her remarkable progress is continuing, and several other spinal cord injury patients like her are also showing benefits from the transplant surgery. Patrizia Durante was diagnosed with acute leukemia 6 months into her pregnancy. Her daughter, Victoria Angel, was born healthy; but Durante was given only 6 months to live. The stem cells from the blood of her daughter's umbilical cord were used for a transplant. Several years later, Durante is in full remission. Durante told reporters she saved her mommy. She is a little miracle. That is why we named her Victoria Angel. She is my little angel. There are many, many examples of people who have been treated and treated extremely well with adult stem cells. Again, I want to say that we are stepping into dangerously uncharted territory when we begin the practice, or if we begin the practice of destroying one life to try to help another life. It is an ethical Rubicon that we should not be crossing. And, again, I know that many people are doing this because they are concerned. They have members of their family who are diabetic, they have members of their family who have Parkinson's disease, or they know people who have diseases and they want to do something to help them. I urge them to study this issue very, very carefully and make sure that they understand the differences between what is happening with adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. And I feel certain that those people will make the right decision, and they will not vote to use money to destroy human embryos and go in that direction when we do not have to, because we have the means to save lives and improve the quality of life with adult stem cells.