Floor Statements

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

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 499, and I want to thank Congressman McCotter for introducing this important resolution that is being considered on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, American journalist Paul Klebnikov devoted his career to exposing corruption within Russia. He was committed to seeing Russia become a free and wholly democratic society. I think I can speak for everyone in this room today that we all share his dream.

Unfortunately, Mr. Klebnikov will not be witness to this, as he was ruthlessly gunned down outside the Moscow offices of Forbes Magazine. He, like 11 other journalists since the Putin administration took office, was murdered in cold blood, chilling freedom of speech and the media in Russia.

Last year, President Putin announced publicly that fighting corruption and protecting the Russian people from crime is a priority for his administration. For this promise not to be seen as yet another hollow gesture, President Putin must do everything in his power to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of Mr. Klebnikov's murder. A free media will never exist in Russia unless the murderers are brought to justice.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge our colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention and that of Congress and the American people an inspirational story of a 5- year-old boy named Adam Susser; whose uplifting story is a true testament to the hope that stem cell research brings in the quest for the treatment and cure of numerous diseases, injuries, and birth defects from which hundreds of millions of people suffer worldwide.

Due to severe asphyxiation at birth, Adam Susser was diagnosed as being cortically blind with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Despite recommendations that Adam be institutionalized, and despite the grim predictions that he would never gain the ability to see or walk; his parents, Gary and Judith, and his twin brother, Brandon, refused to give up hope. With the help of the Genetics Policy Institute, a leading non-profit agency dedicated to the establishment of a positive legal framework to advance the search for cutting-edge cures like stem cell research, Adam's family discovered the means to provide him with the medical care he desperately needed.

Now, after receiving multiple stem cell treatments, Adam has miraculously recovered partial sight; he has overcome his atrophy, gaining the ability to move and walk; he communicates verbally and even goes horseback riding. While I am encouraged by Adam's astonishing progress against significant odds, his story casts a disturbing light on the current barriers that Americans face when seeking such treatment. Stem cell research, including embryonic-based research-- which studies stem cells with the unique capability of developing into any cell type--offers the greatest hope to those who suffer from a myriad of deadly and debilitating diseases, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes. An even more promising aspect of embryonic stem-cell therapy is that it does not require expensive anti-rejection drugs after transplantation.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration policy continues to hinder the use of embryonic stem cells by only allowing researchers access to a limited number of these cells, most of which are unusable due to contamination. This unconscionable policy stance takes us in the wrong direction, as the Administration and Congress should be doing everything in their power to facilitate the scientific and medical community's search for a cure to horrific diseases afflicting millions in America and globally. Adam Susser's story is a shining example of what can be achieved through the use of stem cell therapy, and I urge all my colleagues in Congress to join me in recognizing his courage as well as his family's refusal to give up hope.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this critical resolution, which states unequivocally that Hamas should not be permitted to participate in the upcoming Palestinian elections unless it disarms, renounces terrorism, ceases incitement and recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Since its establishment in 1987, Hamas has used terrorism as a means of achieving its primary political goal--that is, the destruction of Israel. Hamas has masterminded and carried-out numerous terrorist attacks, and are responsible for maiming thousands and killing hundreds of innocent Israelis in addition to 26 Americans.

As we approach the Palestinian parliamentary election on January 25, Hamas has opted to participate--for the first time--in the political process. While this presents a unique opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to delineate red lines for political participation--including the denunciation of terror and disarming of militant groups--no preconditions have been set. Instead, the Palestinian Authority has sat by as Hamas continues to assert its right to run for the parliament as a means of promoting its unconscionable agenda of incitement and terror against Israel.

The upcoming Palestinian election presents a critical test for President Mahmoud Abbas, who has, thus far, failed to dismantle terrorist organizations such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The recent suicide bombing in Netanya served as a painful reminder that Mr. Abbas's plan for ``one authority, one gun'' has yet to be realized, and this resolution is intended to send him a message that he must translate empty rhetoric into concrete action on the ground.

The disarmament of Hamas and the true implementation of ``one authority, one gun'' is in the best interest of the Palestinian people, and the essential first step toward creating an atmosphere conducive to peace.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Issa and Mr. Lantos for joining me in introducing this critical resolution, which condemns Syrian efforts to hinder the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, expresses support for extending the mandate of the investigative commission, and supports punitive sanctions against Syria if it continues to fail to comply with the ongoing investigation.

On February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in a vicious terrorist attack in Beirut, Lebanon that killed 22 and injured more than 100. In response, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1595, establishing an international commission to investigate this attack and demanding the full compliance of all U.N. member states with the investigation.

This commission--led by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis--released its initial findings in a report that implicated senior Syrian officials in the Hariri assassination. This past week, a second report was released that exposed Syrian efforts to impede and obstruct the investigation, including misleading the commission, providing falsified accounts and threatening those involved in the investigation. At this juncture, we must hold the Syrian regime accountable for their actions and demand Syrian compliance with the ongoing investigation.

Since the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, targeted assassinations aimed at intimidating Lebanese opponents of Syria have continued unabated. Just this past week, a prominent and well-respected journalist was killed in a car-bombing in Beirut. Make no mistake; this was a clear attempt to limit freedom of the press in Lebanon on the part of the Syrian regime.

This resolution does just that. It supports the findings of the Mehlis report, condemns the Syrian Government for its apparent involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri and others, and demands Syrian compliance. It also supports U.S.-led efforts to hold Syria accountable for its role in the Hariri assassination under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which leaves the door open for sanctions.

As the U.N. considers the grave and far-reaching implications of the Mehlis report, I strongly support critical and timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3875.

Mr. Speaker, Representatives Alcee L. Hastings, Kendrick B. Meek, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I rise to recognize Mr. Herbert D. Katz for his dedication as a member of the South Florida Jewish Community for the past 35 years. During this time, Herb has held numerous leadership positions in organizations including AIPAC and the United Jewish Appeal (UJA). Herb has served on AIPAC's National Board of Directors for over 20 years and played a key role in strengthening U.S.-Israeli relations, especially on Capitol Hill. Herb's knowledge, credibility and passion for politics have led him to foster key relationships with a wide-range of elected officials, and we deeply value his activism, patriotism and exemplary public service.

Herb Katz has dedicated his life to enhancing U.S.-Israeli ties and has an extraordinary history of championing Jewish causes at the local, national and global level. He served on the UJA Young Leadership Cabinet in its earliest years. He also served as the president of Jewish Federation of Hollywood in the early 1970s and was the first president of the newly established Jewish Federation of Broward County in 1996. He chaired the Board of Overseers of the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He also served as president of the National Board of American Friends of Hebrew University, which awarded him an honorary degree. Herb and his wife Ellie have selflessly exemplified the highest form of hesed and have demonstrated exemplary Jewish leadership and pro-Israel political activism, and we hold them both in the utmost regard.

It is therefore with great pleasure that we offer our heartfelt congratulations to Herb for being honored by AIPAC--one of the foremost advocacy organizations in the world.

Herb's commitment and dedication to U.S.-Israeli relations is immeasurable and his leadership continues to be critical to maintaining the unbreakable bond between the two nations. It is our honor to join AIPAC and its members in recognizing Herb. We thank him for his work, and wish him mazel tov and much continued success.

Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, my heart goes out to the millions of people displaced and suffering from one of our largest national catastrophes in our history. I hope the victims of Hurricane Katrina know that our prayers are with them in this most difficult hour, and I strongly support today's initial package to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

However, the administration's response to this catastrophe is nothing short of a national disgrace itself. How is it possible, how is it possible that the administration did not realize earlier what a catastrophe this is? There is a 90,000 square-mile footprint of disaster, and yet last night FEMA's director, Michael Brown, admitted that the administration had no idea exactly how bad the situation was. Even worse, he had previously characterized the security situation in New Orleans as ``pretty darn good,'' and stopped just short of blaming the residents of New Orleans themselves for not evacuating.

The Bush administration failed the American people in advance of this hurricane by cutting critical funding in spite of the pleas by the Army Corps of Engineers, money that would have been used to reinforce the very levees that broke and flooded New Orleans.

We had plenty of money to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but none apparently to save the poorest Americans with an ounce of prevention.

In terms of the response to the disaster itself, what we have seen is unquestionably too little too late. While the President today said relief efforts so far were ``not acceptable,'' how can he possibly be surprised by this deplorable response? How can he say that flooding was not anticipated? Quite to the contrary, it was expected. It was predicted. What is not acceptable is the President's response.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago we had an opportunity to learn from the disasters in my home State of Florida. Floridians experienced the consequences of FEMA's failure to deliver aid to communities who needed it the most. We saw the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly and the poor, being left out and overlooked. Last year we had the opportunity to prevent this from happening again. At the time I called for the resignation of the head of FEMA, Michael Brown, because of his grievous mismanagement in Florida. The President did not heed that call, nor did he see fit to make any substantial changes in FEMA.

Last year when the President's election was in question, his response to the hurricanes in the swing State of Florida was tremendously fast, even passing out ice in the immediate aftermath. Where was he in the immediate aftermath in New Orleans? Where were the trucks of food, where were the water buffalo? Where were the tents of aid that are just now being established and delivered?

When the issue was the medical condition of Terry Schiavo, the President and the Congress flew back to Washington on Palm Sunday to intervene.

Why did the President delay so long for an entire American city in crisis? These have desperate people who need food, water, shelter and safety, not a photo opportunity, which even itself comes 5 days too late.

Every asset of the great American military in this hemisphere should have been devoted to America's humanitarian crisis starting on Monday at 5 in the afternoon.

I was in Aceh in Indonesia last month. I saw firsthand the greatness of the American aid efforts. Our response in the aftermath of the tsunami was one of America's finest hours. I was extremely proud as an American to see all the work that Americans and our country have done to stave off famine and disease for tens of thousands of desperate people.

Our aircraft carrier was off the Aceh coast within 2 days. If we can do that 12,000 miles away in Indonesia, why not in New Orleans? If we had even met that same standard, help would have been in New Orleans on Wednesday. We would not be seeing the horrific scenes we saw yesterday and today. It should have been self-evident on Monday that now is the time to use our enormous strength for the benefit of our own people.

Mr. Speaker, now is a wake-up call for America. This should never happen again. It should not have happened this time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) smoked out the truth about this bill a couple of minutes ago when he simply asked that the bill include a provision that would require a flat medical malpractice premium rate. He smoked out the truth, and what we now know is that this bill is not about providing access to health care. It is not about solving a health care crisis. What it is about is protecting the insurance industry.

In fact, a study by the insurance commissioner of Missouri found that while malpractice premiums for doctors doubled from 2000 to 2004, malpractice claims during the same period increased less than 6 percent. Insurers themselves admit that capping medical malpractice payments will not reduce premiums. In fact, States that have caps have higher premiums than States without caps in every medical field, including internists, surgeons and OB-GYNs.

The proponents of this bill claim that large payouts are driving up the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is occurring in Florida where the average amount insurers are paying for claims has gone down 14 percent since 1991. At the same time, however, premiums charged by insurers have increased 43 percent. In particular, overall claim payouts for Florida's largest medical insurer, FPIC, dropped 22 percent in the last 4 years. Outrageously, remarkably, this same insurer saw a 154 percent increase in profits for the first quarter in 2004.

This legislation needs to be seen for what it is. It is not about helping doctors. It is not about helping patients. The only goal of this legislation is to ensure even higher profits for insurance companies while not doing a blasted thing to help the sick people in America, to help the people that provide the medical services to our people. This bill will not do one iota to improve health care in this country. The gentleman from New York smoked it out just right.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the very eloquent ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time; and I would first like to associate myself with both his remarks and the remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) as they very aptly expressed the sentiments of the American people in regard to the most recent attacks in Egypt.

The attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh were unconscionable acts of tragedy and terror. At this difficult time, the American people stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Egypt in condemning these reprehensible and senseless acts. As partners in the war against terror, the United States and Egypt are united in our struggle against al Qaeda and the desire for security and peace.

In the past decade, Sharm el-Sheikh has served as an embodiment of hope for the future of the Middle East. It has been a popular tourist destination for Israelis and Europeans and for people worldwide, and the site of high-level peace talks regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and the future of Iraq. It is my hope that Sharm el-Sheikh will continue to serve as a haven for the hope of peace, irrespective of this tragic event. This is the only way to ensure that the victims of this atrocity will not have died in vain.

I join my colleagues in condemning these horrific acts, expressing condolences to the families of those lost, and reaffirming the long- standing partnership between the United States and Egypt. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) very eloquently and aptly said: ``At such a time, it is not the time for debate regarding policy. It is a time for humanity to come together in the quest for the victory of freedom and democracy.''

It would be naive, however, Mr. Speaker, not to acknowledge that these attacks come in a political context. And I would hope, as a result of these attacks, that Egypt continue its efforts, as it has done in the past year, in returning its ambassador to Israel and implementing the QIZ legislation requiring and promoting joint investment between business people in Egypt and Israel for the betterment of Egyptian workers, that Egypt progress on a path of both political and economic reform. That ultimately will provide the victory of freedom and democracy that both Americans and Egyptians justly deserve and the terrorists that committed these heinous acts most definitely oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of today's 9- 0 Supreme Court decision in the MGM v. Grokster case. By ruling that providing the software makes a file-sharing service liable for facilitating this online theft and for encouraging illegal downloads, the Court preserved this country's 200 year history of inspiring American creativity by protecting the rights of those who create it.

Traffic in copyrighted material has already cost American industry hundreds of millions of dollars. One-half of all teenagers have downloaded music for free, with two-thirds of them saying they buy less music now that they can steal it over the Internet so easily. Given the severity and magnitude of the problem, I sincerely hope that today's ruling will force these services to either clean up their acts or discontinue entirely.

The Court unanimously found what so many of us already knew: peer-to- peer networks are merely the latest technology used to steal from copyright owners. Online file-sharing services, like Grokster and KaZaa, may not distribute copyrighted materials off of their own servers, but they certainly encourage that theft and profit from it. Just as in the physical world, promoting criminal activity is itself a crime. I am pleased peer-to-peer networks that actively encourage piracy will now be held responsible for their actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I too

want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for facilitating consideration of this resolution. I also want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), the sponsor of this resolution, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, for his never-ending battle for human rights in Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago on the House floor, we chastised the Cuban regime for its inexcusable continued detention of political dissidents, many of whom are jailed because of their conviction to seek freedom and democracy in Cuba. Unfortunately, there is no indication from Castro that he ever plans to implement political and economic reforms that would give hope to the approximately 11 million citizens on the island who have suffered for far too long.

Many internationally recognized human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced Castro's brutal dictatorship over the years and called for reforms, the release of political prisoners, and urged the totalitarian government to respect basic human freedoms.

This year the Human Rights Commission called attention to the injustices which continue to be inflicted upon those innocent individuals who toil in Castro's prisons. Undeterred, thousands of brave Cubans have sought to bring about political change through opposition and civil society organizations which are loosely coordinated by the Assembly of the Civil Society in Cuba.

The assembly is planning a historic meeting next week on the 103rd anniversary of Cuban independence. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the organizers of the meeting of the assembly to include in the meeting political dissidents who may disagree with them about whether to engage officials within Castro's government on the transition process, in particular, the supporters of the Varela Project, a grassroots, non-violent, citizens' movement in Cuba that seeks fundamental political change by petitioning the Cuban government for a referendum on reform according to that country's constitution.

These groups should feel as though they are welcome within the broader coalition that opposes Castro's policies. Regardless of which groups of political activists attend the assembly, I am concerned that Castro's henchmen will once again try to suppress dissent through the use of force. As a result, I strongly concur with the sentiment expressed in the resolution urging the administration and the international community to stand ready to respond to such an atrocity.

This resolution demonstrates our unequivocal commitment to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Cuban people if such an unjustified response were to occur. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 193.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 210. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his graciousness and the degree of support that he has lent to this bill.

I want to extend a very special thank you to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee, without whom we would not have had the energy and the direction to be here today.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their leadership, as well as the three other Chairs of the Intellectual Property Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who have joined with me in sponsoring House Resolution 210.

This important resolution commemorates World Intellectual Property Day, which is April 26, 2005. On April 26, 1970, the United Nations established the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, which is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. WIPO focuses solely on promoting the use and protection of patents, trademarks, and copyrights internationally. As part of their important advocacy and public awareness campaign, WIPO created World Intellectual Property Day, and it is celebrated each year on the anniversary of WIPO's creation, April 26.

World Intellectual Property Day brings attention to the importance of intellectual property in the world economy and celebrates the contribution made by innovators and artists to the development and growth of societies across the globe. While most Members of the Congress have had the opportunity to see firsthand the importance of intellectual property to artists and businesses in our respective districts, World Intellectual Property Day serves as a helpful reminder to us and as an educational tool for those who may not realize how vital intellectual property is to our economic prosperity.

From artistic works to life-saving medicines to revolutionary inventions, intellectual property enriches, enhances, and informs our lives. In spite of the tremendous importance of intellectual property, many Americans are unaware that the entertainment they enjoy and the technology they use to get their work done would not exist if not for the protections our Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution and the value our society has continued to place on these vital, yet intangible, contributions.

World Intellectual Property Day is focused this year on bringing intellectual property to young people around the globe. Through it, we can reach out to young people about the importance of intellectual property and to increase understanding of how protecting IP rights helps to foster creativity and invention. America is an unsurpassed leader in imagination and innovation, and it will be up to our children and through the efforts of groups like the World Intellectual Property Organization of the U.N. to continue this strong tradition.

House Resolution 210 will help bring attention to World Intellectual Property Day and to the tremendous value of intellectual property, and I hope that all of our colleagues will join us in support of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am both honored and privileged to congratulate Rabbi Merle E. Singer on the occasion of his retirement.

Rabbi Singer has been at Temple Beth El of Boca Raton for 26 years. Before that, he served at Beth Or in Philadelphia and Temple Sinai in Washington, D.C. He has a Bachelors of Arts in Sociology from the University of Cincinnati, and a Master of Arts in Hebrew Letters from the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Rabbi Singer was ordained as a Reform Rabbi in June 1966.

Rabbi Singer is one of the warmest, most charitable and caring people I know. I have personally seen the extraordinary kindness, determination and virtue that Rabbi Singer demonstrates everyday in all aspects of his life. As those of us privileged to know him can attest, Rabbi Singer is deeply devoted to his family, congregants and community. For the past 26 years he has been a religious guide and educator to his congregants serving them in every aspect of synagogue life. Under his leadership, Temple Beth El has grown to be one of the largest Reform synagogues, where the congregation maintains an unwavering commitment to Jewish values and the importance of a Jewish identity.

Beyond the synagogue, Rabbi Singer is one of the most respected people in the community, promoting the highest form of tzedakah by bringing people of different faiths together to help those who need it most. He has started programs like Shared Care, which connects impaired seniors with members in the community--and in the process has become a true community leader. His civic involvement in everything from the United Way to the Boca Raton Community Hospital, exemplifies the principle of tikkun olam. Rabbi Singer's legacy in South Florida already extends far beyond Temple Beth El and will endure for many years.

I wish Rabbi Singer much continued success and good health.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those of us from Florida, the heart-wrenching case involving Terri Schiavo is not new. In fact, for 15 years Mrs. Schiavo has remained in a persistent vegetative state. For 7 years the courts and the State of Florida have heard, ad nauseam, arguments of both sides.

There is this perception possibly that only one judge has been involved in this case. In fact, 19 judges in the State of Florida have participated in various legal proceedings regarding Terri Schiavo. The State of Florida, through our court system, has acted deliberatively, with justice and with due care. The State of Florida, through our judicial system, has taken testimony from everyone in the family and from everyone who knew Mrs. Schiavo that was capable of giving it. The courts in Florida have received expert testimony from many of the most prominent neurosurgeons and neurologists throughout the entire country.

The court system and the 19 judges in Florida have been unanimous, unanimous, in stating that from the evidence provided by a standard of clear and convincing evidence, that it is Mrs. Schiavo's wish that she not be required to continue in a persistent vegetative state.

So I would respectfully suggest for those of us that take exception to the proposed action by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and by this Congress that we stand in the shoes of Terri Schiavo. We stand in her shoes, because what we are simply arguing is that the will of Terri Schiavo, as found by the legal system of Florida, which is the law of the land as of now, that her will be respected and that her will be carried out.

With all due respect to the proposed remedy, in effect if this bill were to pass what this Congress is designating is that the court system of Florida will lose its long history of jurisdiction of this matter and others like it, and the jurisdiction of the Federal Court will be substituted.

The majority would argue that this is a principal position. And while I would not dare suggest otherwise, I would ask the question, if the Florida courts had found in favor of Terri Schiavo's parents, would we be here this evening? I suspect not. So it is fair to conclude, therefore, that the reason we are here this evening is that the majority is unhappy, objects to the decision rightfully reached by the courts of the State of Florida; and as a result, the majority wishes to undermine over 200 years of jurisprudence and a long history in this country for respect for our judicial independence as well as the States court systems and the jurisdictions assigned to it.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest this one thing, this is heart-wrenching for all Americans. Each American I believe tonight and today has been searching his or her soul wondering how they would react if, God forbid, they were in this position. But the issue before this Congress is not an emotional one. It is simply one that respects the rule of law, the rule of law in the State of Florida, the rule of law which has involved the participation of 19 judges, all unanimous in their view. Not a single medical piece of evidence has been provided by anybody who has diagnosed or in person witnessed Mrs. Schiavo that has said anything other than that she persists in an vegetative state.

And yet this Congress seeks to replace and substitute our judgment, even though not a single one of us as far as I understand has ever diagnosed Mrs. Schiavo, nor do we have the medical expertise to do so; and yet we are willing tonight to replace with our judgment the judgment of the most prominent doctors in our country and a court system which has labored extensively to yield a just result.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for purposes of control.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 65.