EXCERPTS FROM THE HOUSE DEBATE ON TERRY SCHIAVO

 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
Sunday, March 20, 2005
109th Congress, 1st Session
151 Cong Rec H 1700
Vol. 151, No. 35
 FOR THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

TEXT:  [*H1700] 


Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill ( S. 686) for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

The Clerk read as follows:
 
                                    S. 686

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 
          SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
 
                              SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District  [*H1701] 
Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
 
                               SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
 
                           SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
 
                   SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
 
                   SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related_

(1) to assisting suicide, or

(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
 
                 SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
 
       SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.
 
                        SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) each will control 90 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
 
                                General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 686.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 686, For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. As the House convenes this Palm Sunday, the Florida courts are enforcing a merciless directive to deprive Terri Schiavo of her right to life.

Terri Schiavo, a person whose humanity is as undeniable as her emotional responses to her family's tender care-giving, has committed no crime and has done nothing wrong. Yet the Florida courts have brought Terri and the Nation to an ugly crossroads by commanding medical professionals sworn to protect life to end Terri's life. This Congress must reinforce the law's commitment to justice and compassion for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable.

On March 16, the House passed legislation to avert the tragedy now unfolding in Florida. The House bill,  H.R. 1332, The Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005, passed the House by voice vote. Earlier today, I introduced  H.R. 1452, For the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. The Senate-passed legislation now before us is identical to that bill.

Mr. Speaker, while our federalist structure reserves broad authority to the States, America's Federal courts have played a historic role in defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, including the disadvantaged, disabled, and dispossessed. Among the God-given rights protected by the Constitution, no right is more sacred than the right to life.

The legislation we will consider today will ensure that Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to life will be given the Federal court review that her situation demands. Unlike legislation passed by the Senate a day after House passage of H.R. 1332, the legislation received from the Senate today is not a private bill. Also, and of critical importance, S. 686 does not contain a provision that might have authorized the Federal court to deny desperately needed nutritional support to Terri Schiavo during the pendency of her claim.

Unlike earlier Senate legislation, S. 686 also contains a bicameral and bipartisan commitment that Congress will examine the legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are unable to make decisions concerning the provision or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Broad consideration of this issue is necessary to ensure that similarly situated individuals are accorded the equal protection under law that is both a fundamental constitutional right and an indispensable ingredient of justice.

It is important to note that this legislation does not create a new cause of action. Rather, it merely provides de novo Federal court review of alleged violations of Terri Schiavo's rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Furthermore, Senate 686 makes it clear that "nothing in this act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of several States."

In addition, the legislation does not reopen or direct the reopening of a final judgment; it merely ensures that opportunity for the review of any violation of Terri Schiavo's Federal and constitutional rights in a Federal court. As a result, the legislation is clearly consistent with both the separation of powers envisioned by our Founders and the weight of judicial precedent on point. As the Supreme Court held in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms, "While legislatures usually act through laws of general applicability, that is by no means their only legitimate mode of action."

Finally, S. 686 presents no problems regarding retrospective application. As the Supreme Court held in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, "A statute does not operate 'retrospectively' merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's enactment." Rather, the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment. S. 686 does not attach any new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment; it merely changes the tribunal to hear the case by providing Federal court jurisdiction to review alleged violations of Terri Schiavo's Federal and constitutional rights.

Mr. Speaker, the measure of a Nation's commitment to the sanctity of life is reflected in its laws to the extent those laws honor and defend its most vulnerable citizens. When a person's intentions regarding whether to receive lifesaving treatment are unclear, the responsibility of a compassionate Nation is to affirm that person's right to life. In our deeds and in our public actions, we must build a culture of life that welcomes and defends all human life. The compassionate traditions and highest values of our country command us to action.

We must work diligently not to not only help Terri Schiavo continue her own fight for life, but to join the fight of all those who have lost capacity to fight on their own. As millions of Americans observe the beginning of Holy Week this Palm Sunday, we are reminded that every life has purpose, and none is without meaning. The battle to defend the preciousness of every life in a culture that respects and defends life is not only Terri's fight, but it is America's fight.

I commend the other body for passing this legislation without objection, and urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us in this fight by passing S. 686 to affirm the sanctity of life and to permit Terri to continue hers.

...

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

Mr. WEXLER . 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. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. KING of Iowa . Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I especially thank the chairman for his leadership on bringing this legislation to the floor in the condition that it is in, and I would like to compliment all the leadership in the House and on the Senate on both sides of the aisle that have worked so hard and so diligently throughout this weekend and given up their Palm Sunday weekend to serve a very important citizen of this country and someone whom we have an obligation to protect the constitutional rights of Terri Schiavo.

She has a right to due process under the 14th amendment, and she has a right to equal protection. She has a right to her day in court. We look at the circumstances that took place in the Florida courts and the continual appeals that we went back through and the relentless efforts to end her life by her guardian, her estranged husband, who may have a conflict of interest. And I look back into that to see what that might amount to because it is always important to understand the potential for the motives.

And as I added up these dollars, the settlement for medical malpractice, $250,000 preliminarily and the court then ruled another $1.4 million to Terri Schiavo and $600,000 awarded to Michael Schiavo, that is $2,225,000 awarded in her behalf. Of that one can assume approximately $800,000 went to attorneys fees and costs.

Now, additionally the court ordered $750,000 to go into the Terri Schiavo trust account. Now, that was pledged to go for her rehabilitation, her care, her medical treatment, and her tests. And that was a pledge made by her guardian, Michael Schiavo. But of that $750,000, these are the most conservative numbers that I can produce, there was $486,941 that went to attorneys' fees to promote her death, not her care; another $10,929 to Michael Schiavo for expenses; another $55,000 to the bank for, assumedly, administrative fees.

When you do the math on this and shake this down, it breaks down to this: approximately $2 million out of that $2.25 million against her interests  [*H1704] 
into the pockets of attorneys and into the pockets of Michael Schiavo and into the pockets of the bank for administrative fees. Less than $200,000 was committed to her care over all of these years, 13 or 14 years.

And I think this illustrates a potential for a conflict of interest. She is not on life support, Mr. Speaker. She needs only a feeding tube and the court ordered to remove the tube. And if it were determined that her food and fluid were to be stopped, all they had to do was stop adding it. It is a horrible way to die. She has been denied therapy, and she has been denied treatment. It has been stated that she does not show any electronic brain waves. She only had a CAT scan back in the early 90s. She has never had an MRI. She has never had a PET scan, and she has been denied treatment even for infection. And when they sent her to the hospice 5 years ago, a place where a person is sent to die, 5 years she has been there, Mr. Speaker, and 5 years she has been denied sunshine, denied even the ability to be rolled out into the sunshine in her wheelchair.

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

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who both as a Member of this body and previously as a member of the Florida legislature has a rare commodity on the floor today, genuine knowledge on the subject of which we are speaking.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me time.

There are a number of things that I would like to correct for the record before I begin. I apologize for not knowing the State that the gentleman is from, but the representation regarding the care of Theresa Schiavo by her husband as represented in the Chamber is totally inaccurate. Theresa's husband, and I am quoting from the guardian ad litem report, the independent guardian ad litem report that was required by Florida law during the special session in October of 2003, it says: "Theresa's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtually partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love, and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa were the shared intentions of Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers. Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive rather than cognitive moments, random eye opening, no communication system, and little change cognitively or functionally."

And the gentleman referenced the percentage of the medical malpractice damage award being $486,000 going to attorneys' fees and to helping her reach her demise. That is also totally inaccurate. Also quoting from the guardian ad litem report: There was a medical malpractice case filed and pursued. Michael Schiavo and Terri Schiavo were awarded $750,000 in economic damages. The economic damages were put into a trust that was meticulously cared for according to the guardian ad litem and which was managed by South Trust Bank as the guardian and independent trustee. This fund was accounted for and Michael Schiavo had absolutely no control over its use. Michael Schiavo was awarded $300,000 for loss of consortium damages.

That is money that was awarded to him. There is not very much of that left. And there is no truth to the accusation that he would benefit financially from that damage award and there certainly was not $2 million in damages awarded. ...   I just wanted to correct some of those facts for the record, Mr. Speaker. The circumstances that bring us here today are horribly tragic. No matter where you may fall on this issue, the details of Terri's case are heart-wrenching. No one in this Chamber questions the pain, heartache, and personal struggles that every member of Ms. Schiavo's family has had to deal with over the last 15 years. But heartbreaking decisions like this are deeply intimate, personal, and private matters; and the Federal Government and this body, in particular, should not inject itself into the middle of this private family matter.

This very personal matter should not be politicized as it is being here today. Just a few hours ago, I had an opportunity to sit down with Ms. Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler. I know that he speaks with great sincerity as I told him about his sister. Indeed, it is important to emphasize that this type of gut-wrenching, angst-ridden decision happens every day across the country among families dealing with the tragic circumstances of a loved one. And I know the pain that this causes families only too well because it happened in my own family not even 5 weeks ago. My husband's family had to make the identical decision to withdraw sustenance to disconnect the feeding tube of my husband's aunt.

Her children came together to make that very difficult decision, and no one in my family felt it was essential that I or any other Member of Congress file legislation to stop it. This type of decision happens every single day to thousands of families across America. Where will we stop if we allow this to go forward? Today will be Terri Schiavo. Tomorrow it will be someone's brother or a constituent's uncle or next week a family member, God forbid, of one of my colleagues or another constituent.

Do we really want to set the precedent of this great body, the United States Congress, to insert ourselves in the middle of families' private matters all across America?

If we do this, we will end up throwing end-of-life decisions into utter and complete chaos; and we cannot and should not do that. We are Members of Congress. We are not doctors. We are not medical experts. We are not bio-ethicists. We are Members of Congress.

When I ran for Congress, I did not ask my constituents for the right to insert myself in their private, personal families decisions; and they do not want me to make those for them. They do not want you to make those for them either. That is the bottom line.

I cannot get into the kind of questions that we are getting into being asked here because we do not know. I have never met Michael Schiavo or Terri Schiavo or the Schindlers and the vast majority of people in this body have not either.

We do not have the expertise or the facts in enough detail to get into these kinds of decisions and make decisions on these kind of cases. We are not God and we are not Terri Schiavo's husband, sister, brother, uncle or relation. We are Members of Congress. We make  [*H1707] 
laws and we uphold the law and we swore to uphold and protect the Constitution and we are thumbing our noses at the Constitution if we do this here tonight.

Now, I have heard a lot of things said about this legislation and about the very proceeding that we are engaging in this evening. I have heard accusations that because this body is debating this legislation, we are threatening somehow the life of Ms. Schiavo. I think it is really important to note that this is a legislative body created by our forefathers for the express purpose of deliberations and representation.

The accusation that because we have 3 hours of debate on an unprecedented piece of legislation that seeks to insert the Federal Government in between a family while overruling State courts and circumventing the Constitution, that is an outrageous accusation and not worthy of a representative elected to craft and debate legislation.

I notice today that President Bush has returned from Crawford hoping to sign this legislation if it is passed by Congress. I think it is important to note that President Bush when he was Governor of Texas in 1999 signed a Texas law that is on the books today that was just used a few days ago to allow a hospital to withdraw, over the parents' objections, the life support of a 6-month-old boy, over the parents' objections.

President Bush signed a law called the Texas Advanced Directives Act, when he was Governor of Texas. This law, that has been used several times and as recently as a few days ago, liberalized the situations under which a person in Texas can avoid artificial life support. Under it, life support can be withheld or withdrawn if you have an irreversible condition in Texas from which you are expected to eventually pass away.

Indeed, this law, signed by then Governor Bush, allows doctors to remove a patient from life support if the hospital's ethics committee agrees, even over the objections of a family member, only allowing the family 10 days to find another facility that might accept the patient, barring any State judicial intervention.

It appears that President Bush felt, as Governor, that there was a point at which, when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made, even over the objections of family members. That was a law that President Bush did not just allow to become law without his signature, he came back from a campaign trip to sign it.

There is an obvious conflict here between the President's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was Governor of Texas, so I thought that was an important conflict that should be raised here this evening in our discussion.

Let me just close my remarks by reiterating there is no room for the Federal Government in this most personal of private angst-ridden family matters, in which a family has to make the most personal of decisions when dealing with the course of care of a loved one. We should not politicize this very personal family matter.

Ms. Schiavo made it clear, as opposed to what the gentleman from Wisconsin said, that she would not have wished to remain in a persistent vegetative state, and the guardian ad litem report well documents that. In fact, it documents it to such a degree that it cites the specific conversations referenced by her family members when she attended funerals of loved ones who were in similar situations when they had life support removed; and she had stated that if, God forbid, she was ever in this situation, that she would not have wished to remain on life support.

The court heard that testimony not from Terri Schiavo's husband, not from her parents, but from other family members and friends who heard her say these things. They said that there was enough evidence to render the belief that she had made those statements. She made it clear that she wished not to remain in a persistent vegetative state, which she is in today. And this U.S. Government should not step in to circumvent the wishes of one dying woman.

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

Mr. Speaker, Federal courts have always reviewed whether or not a person's Federal constitutional or legal rights have been violated, and that is all this bill does. It gives a Federal Court the opportunity to review the Federal questions that are presented here.

Now, if we accepted the position that has been made by the opponents of this legislation, we would not have had a civil rights revolution in this country if rural courts in the South decided Federal questions that were opposed by those who were petitioning to have their civil rights protected. That required Federal judicial action. And this country is better because of that Federal judicial action. That is all that is being proposed here today, and that is why the bill ought to pass.

Now, secondly, I would like to correct some of the representations my colleague from Florida has made. Terri Schiavo is not on life support. She is not on a ventilator. She is not on any kind of artificial heart pump. All she has is a feeding tube, or had a feeding tube until it was removed 2 days ago, and that is not life support. That is simply requiring somebody to have the nutrition and the hydration they need as a living human being.

To starve someone to death or to have them die of dehydration slowly is one of the most cruel and inhumane ways to die, and what this bill does is it requires the reinsertion of the feeding tube for so long as it takes for a Federal Court to determine whether or not her Federal constitutional or statutory rights are violated. And that is reasonable, because she should not be allowed to die while the courts are determining what her legal rights are and whether anybody has violated them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. KING of Iowa . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.

I wanted the opportunity to address the issue of the funding that has gone in on behalf of Terri Schiavo, and the report that I have put together, I could easily add several hundred thousand dollars to that that have gone towards attorneys and towards the interests of Michael Schiavo as opposed to the interests of Terri Schiavo.

I would have a documented report that I would file with the Congressional Record, except that the trust fund for Terri Schiavo has been sealed at the request of the attorney on behalf of Michael Schiavo. So, therefore, we cannot get those records. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes. What we know is that she has not had tests, she has not had therapy, and she has been denied medical treatment.

The attorney of record for Michael Schiavo happens to also have been a former member of the board of directors of the hospice where Terri Schiavo is now being taken care of. And by the way, I happen to have another piece of information that flowed to me today, a GAO audit looked in on that and that organization paid $14.8 million back in Medicaid fees that were inappropriately collected.

Another question we have is, we do not know whether there is a life insurance policy that would name someone as beneficiary in the event of the death of Terri Schiavo. The question has been asked of the guardian several times, and he has refused to answer every time. So we cannot even evaluate the assets or the intent of the guardian. Those issues will be looked at by the court.

Another issue that should be addressed, and we will hear this continually as this 3-hour debate goes on, is the allegation that 19 judges have reviewed this and 19 judges have concurred. I have put together the full list of the judges that have heard the case of Terri Schiavo in the history of this, and throughout all of that I can identify Judge Greer, and I can identify a three-judge panel that heard her case en banc, and I can identify the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, which we saw perform a number of times in the year 2000, and also the United States Supreme Court, which simply refused or denied cert on the subpoenas last week.

So if we are going to count judges sitting en banc and if we are going to count supreme courts in totals of 7 and  [*H1708] 
9, that narrows it down pretty much to one judge that has seen and reviewed all this case and that is Judge Greer. And I believe that Terri Schiavo deserves her day in court. She deserves a de novo review. She deserves an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity at life.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is never a good recommendation for a bill when its proponents deny its plain meaning. The gentleman from Wisconsin said this is not a private bill. Well, perhaps in the technical and irrelevant terms of the House calendar it is not a private bill. It is in fact a very private bill. It is so private that it deals only with the Schiavo case and her parents.

And in an admission that it is not a very good idea, a provision of this bill, really quite unusual, says by the way, we hope no one will pay attention to this in the future. In legal language, that is, this is not to be precedent setting. Well, if this is such a good idea, if Congress acting as the super Supreme Court of Florida is the right thing to do for Ms. Schiavo, why go to such pains, those of you who wrote the bill, to say it should not be a precedent?

By the way, anyone who thinks it will not be a precedent, of course, is not paying attention. What you will do today, if this bill passes, is invite every family dispute of this terrible, painful, heartrending nature to come to the Congress. When brothers and sisters disagree, when parents disagree, the courts of the States will have no relevance; probably the Federal courts will not. Every single dispute will come here.

Now, here is what we are doing here, and it is not the Federalism argument that bothers me as much as it is the separation of powers. We have already heard debates. What was the fee in the legal case? What about the hospice? Does she or does she not, this poor woman who was so terribly hurt, does she or does she not have brain function? Does she or does she not respond?

Nobody in here knows. Nobody in here has any way of knowing. What we have are Members choosing a side based on their ideologies. There are people who believe, in what is described as pro life, that nothing that terminates a life is ever justified. In fact, people have said, well, if she had said so, but many of those who hold that do not think you have a right to say that. There are others of us who believe, and I must tell you, from what I have read, if I were a member of the Schiavo family, if a member of my family were involved, I would have made the same decision. But I haven't made the decision. I have no right to make that decision, and I have no information for it.

Separation of powers. When they wrote the Constitution, they were not kidding around. They made some sensible distinctions. We legislate on broad policy. When you get to individual ajudications, when you get to the case, people have said, well, we disagree with the medical report. We had the eminent Dr. Frist looking at it on television and making his diagnosis. We have people making specific judgments about her wishes. We have people making specific judgments about her medical condition. We have not spent very much time on that. Judges have done that, lawyers have done that, in adversarial proceedings they have done that.

Now, I know we heard a disparagement of the Supreme Court of Florida. People did not like the way they voted 4 years ago, but what does that have to do with whether or not the husband's wishes and wife's wishes are carried out in this case? That is why we should not be making this decision.

If you listen to the debate, this is confirmation of what the writers of the Constitution did when they said separation of powers. Congress deals with broad policy. Individual adjudications are made by judges, with cases of lawyers and presentations and evidence. None of that has happened here. You are asking to make a decision based on most of us knowing very little, if anything, at all. Ideology is driving this, and that is why we have a separation of powers.

This is not a bill, by the way. This is a court decision. What happened has been that this has been very well litigated in Florida, litigated on a number of occasions, with lawyers on all sides. Because the majority, for their ideological reasons, do not like the decision of the Florida courts, we have now a new principle; that the Congress of the United States will be the super Supreme Court of a State.

In lawyers terms, we can vacate a judgment and then remand it. But not even remand it. Not send it back to the court that decided it, to a better court. Talk about forum shopping. People wanted to get rid of forum shopping. This is the grandparent of all forum shops. We dislike what the courts in Florida have done, so we cancel their decision and we send it elsewhere.

The gentleman from Wisconsin said this does not create any new rights. Well, it gives standing by its own terms to the parents. And, by the way, if it does not create any new rights, why is it necessary? If in fact without this bill no new rights have been created, why could they not have gone to court without us? The answer is they could not. Because that is not what American jurisprudence has said.

I believe, as I said, if I were making this decision for myself or anyone close to me, I would make the same decision Michael Schiavo made. But I would not try to defend my judgment in this case. I do not know her medical condition. I do not know what her wishes were. But neither do any of you.

This is as difficult a decision as human beings can make. I am proud to be a politician, but I think we would all agree that you should not make this kind of a decision, this kind of a decision about life, in these terribly emotional circumstances. It should not be made politically. I think we would all agree to that. But then let us look at the corollary. If you do not want a decision to be made politically, why in the world do you ask 535 politicians to make it?

Does anyone think that this decision will be made without consideration of electoral support or party of ideology? Of course not. And again, this is not the only case. People should understand that, those who are watching what we do. Despite your argument that this is not setting a precedent, every aggrieved party in any similar litigation can now come to Congress and ask us to make a series of decisions.

This is the point. This is a terribly difficult decision, which we are institutionally totally incompetent to make.

To allow ideology to triumph in that context is a shame.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, my friend from Massachusetts said, in a habeas corpus bill, "I want judicial review in a reasonable way. I want people who may have had their rights interfered with to be able to sue in reasonable fora."

That is what this bill does. He was right then. I think this bill is right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the committee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his humanity and courage to deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is important for those of us in this Chamber to first remind ourselves again of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said, "The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government."

Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The phrase in the 14th amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says: "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." It is unconscionable that judges holding responsibility to protect Terri Schiavo's constitutional rights have chosen to abandon those responsibilities so that now Congress has no honorable alternative but to respond as we are.

Hubert Humphrey once said that a society is measured by how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life. It is true that Terri Schiavo lives among us in the shadows of life. But she is not brain dead or comatose. She is awake and she is able to hear, she is able to see, she is often alert. She can feel pain, she interacts with her environment, she laughs, she  [*H1709] 
cries. She expresses joy when her parents visit her and sorrow when they leave.

Mr. Speaker, she reminds me so much of another woman, whose name I will not mention, who was in much the same circumstance as Terri and a young nurse insisted every morning on singing to this patient. Of course, her colleagues upbraided her and said, well, she can't hear you; those are just reflex actions. But she continued day after day, year after year, to sing to her every morning. Finally she left the hospital, and yet a few years later, the patient regained her state of mind and came back, as it were, to a healthy, clear mind. And all of the nurses gathered around her and met with her and they said, Do you remember? Do you remember when we took care of you, when we turned you to keep you from getting bed sores? When we washed you? When we tried to feed you?

And she said, No, I don't remember anything except someone singing.

Mr. Speaker, Terri Schiavo represents the mortality and helplessness of us all as human beings. And whether we realize it or not, we are at this moment lying down beside her listening for that song of hope. If we as a Nation subject her to the torture and agony of starving and thirsting to death while her brother, her mother and her father are forced to watch, we will scar our own souls. And we will be allowing those judges who have lost their way to drag us all one more ominous step into a darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and the predatory survival of the fittest prevails over humanity.

If the song of hope is to be silenced, Mr. Speaker, let it not be tonight.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 74 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has 68 minutes remaining.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Wisconsin in an effort to find an inconsistency quoted me as being for habeas corpus so people can have their day in court. I am. I do not ever remember supporting a bill in Congress where we decided person by person who got the right of habeas corpus and who did not. My argument is a separation-of-powers argument. Yes, I believe a general right to go to court when you have claimed there has been an error in your criminal procedure makes sense, but we are not talking about that here. We are talking about, despite his claim that this is not a private bill, a private bill, a bill that names one individual and allows this individual to do it. So if the question is would I be in favor of this House deciding who got the right to bring habeas petitions and in what circumstances on a case-by-case basis, the answer is, I would not. It would be a failure to understand the separation of powers, what is an appropriate function for a legislative body and what is an appropriate case-by-case adjudication for the court system.

...

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The caption tonight ought to be "We are not doctors. We just play them on C-SPAN." The point is this: The gentleman is making specific medical arguments. He has said, in strong criticism of the entire judicial system of the State of Florida, that they did not give her a fair chance; that the entire judicial system, all of those appeals, all of those trials, all of that litigation, that that did not give her a fair chance and we will now vacate the judgment of Florida. And why? Not because any of us know one thing or another, but because many Members here genuinely have a strong ideological interest, and that is precisely why this ought to be a judicial decision and not a legislative decision.

...


Mr. GINGREY . Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks a few minutes ago from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I want to say that I am not sure whether or not I am on C-SPAN, but I am absolutely sure that I am not playing doctor, for indeed I am one.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for returning to Washington on Palm Sunday to take up this very important issue. As my colleagues know, we are here today in an attempt to safe the life of Terry Schiavo. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman  [*H1713] 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for their leadership on this issue. Although Congress cannot heal Terri, we do have the ability to save her from an inhumane death from forced starvation and dehydration.

Mr. Speaker, since Terri Schiavo's brain injury 15 years ago, she has been profoundly disabled. She is not, however, in a coma. She responds to the people around her; she smiles and she can feel. Terri is very much alive.

Mr. Speaker, listen to the words spoken just one year ago by Pope John Paul II to the International Congress of Catholic Physicians on life-sustaining treatments and the vegetative state: "A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a vegetable or a man animal. Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a vegetative state retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging them as his sons and daughters, especially in need of help."

The tragedy of this situation is that with proper treatment, now denied, Terri's condition can improve. Even though Terri's parents object to the removal of her feeding tube, the courts have rejected their pleas, and at this point it appears that all legal efforts to save her life have been exhausted, unless Congress acts swiftly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a duty as Members of Congress to uphold a culture of life and compassion.

Terri has been incapable of making relevant decisions, particularly concerning her medical care, since she collapsed due to a potassium imbalance in 1990 at age 27, just a few years after her marriage to Michael Schiavo. Terri's parents want her to live. The governor of Florida, her state of residence, and many in the state legislature want her to live; however, the Florida Court system has ruled the husband's guardian rights should prevail. Unfortunately, his wishes have set his wife on a course of dehydration, starvation, and death.

It is important to note that Terri never had the opportunity to plead her own case in court and she never executed an advanced directive or living will in writing.

Terri responds to verbal, auditory, and visual stimuli, normally breathes on her own and can move her limbs on command. As a result of her parent's love, they have fought for years to prevent her court ordered death and have expressed their willingness to take care of her for the rest of her life.

Since the Florida state court has issued an order prohibiting Terri from even being given food or water by her mouth, once her tube is pulled she will not die from any disease, but from starvation and dehydration.

Florida law prohibits the starvation of dogs, yet will allow the starvation of Terri Schiavo. Florida law does not allow for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia, nor does my compassionate God fearing state of Georgia. Although I am not a neurologist by specialty, my basic courses in medical school taught me that dehydration is a horrific process.

It is a process that only the cruelest tyrants in history have used to "cleanse" populations. The patient's skin cracks, their nose bleeds, they vomit as the stomach lining dries out, and they have pangs of hunger and thirst. Starvation is a very painful death to which no one should be deliberately exposed.

The tragedy of this situation is that with proper treatment, now denied, Terri's condition can improve. Even though Terri's parents object to the removal of her feeding tube, the courts have rejected their pleas and, at this point, it appears that all legal efforts to save her life have been exhausted unless Congress acts swiftly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a duty as Members of Congress to uphold a culture of life and compassion. It is important that we act today to save Terri Schiavo's life and uphold the moral and legal obligation of our nation, indeed this poor woman's Constitutional right to life.

In our nation of checks and balances, I believe it is time for Congress to check the Florida court's decision and pass this life saving measure.

I encourage bipartisan support of this legislation because we are here, at this "11th hour," quite literally, to save Terri's life.
 

...


Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton).

Ms. NORTON . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know how to approach this case. Should you approach it as a mother or a member of the family on the opposite side, should you approach it as a member of the House of Representatives, should you try to approach it as a lawyer?

One thing is clear: choosing up sides, where you or I stand on our particular values, clearly will not do. That is why matters of this kind involving families have for more than 200 years been committed to State courts, because we are all over the place, State By State, person by person, on this issue. We are hopelessly divided.

Countless Americans have already made decisions like this, over and over again. Countless more have a different view. There are some who, if they had to choose, would side with the husband as the next of kin, because he believes he knows what his wife desired based on what she said to him and believes he would betray her trust if he simply walked away. Who can fail to be sympathetic with him?

Who can fail to be sympathetic with the parents, who almost instinctively have adopted the role of parent? When the mother said today, "Save my little girl," she is not even any more for her a grown woman, the wife of somebody. She is her little girl, and always will be; and I understand that.

There are 50 different States, 51 including the District of Columbia, with wholly different approaches to the same matter. How shall we choose? Which is best in a Federal Republic? To give it to the Congress? To then instruct the Federal courts to violate every rule we have had for 215 years? I hardly think so.

Until today, there was no doubt how finality should be reached in a case like this. My only hope is that somehow this will finally be settled without a three-part constitutional crisis of the kind we are creating here, the crisis at the heart of federalism and the Federal Republic for which we stand, the bedrock of who we are, the State-Federal system, where State issues with State courts are final and our issues are final, except in very narrow circumstances given the limited vision of the Federal Government, of the Founders, or the crisis of separation of powers, which we were barely circuiting here, or the crisis of the constitutional right of privacy. Choose your crisis.

The victims here are real people, however, caught in a dispute of Shakespearean dimensions. The other side thinks that is right, it is life and death. That is what makes it different.

But my friends, never before in countless cases in Federal and State  [*H1714] 
courts in 215 years, life and death has not made a difference in my own lifetime and in the history of my country as I have read it. I wish that the fact that life and death were at issue had meant that we could go into Federal court every time we disagreed.

...

Mr. WELDON of Florida . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I commend him for the work he has put in over the last 4 days to try to bring this bill to the floor.

This is not the original version of the bill that I introduced about 2 weeks ago, but I think it will have the intended result.

For many people listening and watching, you may get the impression this is a dispute between the Democrats and the Republicans; but there were 30, approximately 30 Democrats on the bill and I know that many Democrats do support this.

I practiced medicine for 15 years, internal medicine, before I came to the House of Representatives. I took care of a lot of these kinds of cases. And there were basically three features of this case that compelled me to feel that a Federal review of the case was warranted. And by the way, I think it has been pointed out by some of the people that preceded me, Scott Peterson's case is going to get a Federal review, John Couey, the man who confessed to killing that young girl in Florida not far from where Terri Schiavo lives, he will get a Federal review; but there were several features of it.

Number one, by my medical definition she was not in a vegetative state based on my review of the videos, my talking to the family, and my discussing the case with one of the neurologists who examined her. And, yes, I asked to get into the room and was unable to do so.

The other thing was this very lengthy pause, and that has also been pointed out by some of the people who have spoken, of 7 years between her original injury and when it was stated that she had prior voiced sentiments of not wanting heroic life-sustaining measures.

My clinical experience has always been that immediately family brings that up. They do not wait 7 years.

There were other features of this case that I thought were highly unusual that warranted a Federal review. I think this is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

The gentleman's remarks again emphasize that this is a judicial and not a legislative case. He says there are aspects of this case that call for judicial review. That is why we have courts.

Yes, other people can get other Federal review by general statutes. None of the other cases he mentioned are in Federal courts because a particular bill was passed in a particular situation to send them there based on a review of those facts.

The gentleman is entitled to his view of the facts as he said. There are aspects of this case that lead him to think that it should go back into court. That is what courts are for. He has just described the antithesis of a legislative decision, particularly since almost none of the Members have either as much information as he does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. BAIRD . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I do not know what to do tonight. I honestly do not. If Terri Schiavo were here, she could tell us what she would like her fate to be under this circumstance. Those who say that we are condemning her to death by starvation, that may be so if action is not taken tonight. But it may also be so that you may be condemning her to a life that she might not choose were she here to choose that.

Some of us have spoken on both sides of the aisle of holding our loved one in our hands as they died, having made the decision not to have heroic measures. For 23 years before working in this body, I served as a clinical neuropsychologist. I have been with many patients in persistent vegetative state.

I wish life were different. I really wish it were. I will tell Members the stories like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and others about sudden recoveries, where people almost miraculously or magically are better and return to their former state are apocryphal for the most part.

After years of coma, people do not return to who they were before. What happens is we have a brain stem that is miraculously robust at protecting breathing and heart rate, but it is our  [*H1716] 
cortex that makes us who we are and that cortex dies when it is deprived of oxygen and we effectively die with it.

And I am sorry about that. It is so tragic.

I honestly do not know what to do. But for anybody to try to imply that people on one side or the other do not care about this woman is not right or fair, on either side. This is an American tragedy but, more importantly, it is a personal tragedy. And people on both sides are pro life in the richness and complexity and difficulty of it.

Some are trying to do their best to honor what they believe are this woman's wishes to not live condemned to a bed where she cannot speak or enjoy the higher virtues of life she might choose. And if she did indeed say I would not choose the fate of being condemned to this bed, then we are denying her that right to make the choice. That is the challenge here tonight, my friends.

But let no one who leaves this body somehow imply that whichever the vote is taken, one side or the other does not respect life in its richness. We are all pro life. We all feel for this family. And also let no one believe that we are somehow saving this woman from a horrific fate whichever route we choose.

...

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT . Mr. Speaker, this case, what we are doing here tonight, is not about Terri Schiavo. The evidence for that begins in the way this was brought to this body, being brought in on St. Patrick's Day at 11:30 at night, with no hearings, no notice to the body, nothing. It was going to be rammed through here without discussion.

And what troubles me, and I have heard my colleagues here, as a psychiatrist, I cannot make diagnoses of people that I have not examined. That is contrary to my profession, and I can be disciplined for doing that. The rest of you can be doctors. You can come out here and tell us anything you want. But a doctor cannot come out here and say anything really about somebody they have not examined.

So what you are now doing with this, and you want it both ways. This is what troubles me about this. On the one hand, you say this is not precedent. This is only one case. This is only one case. What am I supposed to do as a physician like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz)? As a psychiatrist, I dealt over and over and over again with family members facing this exact problem. It is gut-wrenching. You do not get any planning process here. You do not get any, well, this is going to happen in a month, why don't you get ready for it. It happens and then you have got to make a decision. And there you are as a family group. Everyone here is going to have this happen to them sometime.

When my father was 95 years old, he had had a couple of strokes. On his first stroke, we talked to him. He was 93 before we ever talked about a living will, okay? That is the way it is in America. That is why we do not have Terri's words in a will. You do not think about dying when you are young.

All right. So my father has had a stroke. We said to him, Dad, what do you want us to do in terms of extending your life? He said, Well, I don't want any of those paddles that they use on ER. They can do artificial resuscitation, but I don't want that paddle thing.

Okay. The doctor came to me and said to me, Jim, the paddles are much more humane than doing artificial resuscitation. If you press on an old man's chest to try and start his heart from the external massage, you break the ribs. Then he has got pain from broken ribs. Actually, the paddle is much more humane.

So I went back to my father, and my brothers and I, we had a talk with him, and he said, well, I want it done the way it should be done. Then came the day when he had his third stroke and he could no longer swallow, and he was on IVs. And so there were two brothers, a sister, and me and my mother, and we had to stand around and decide whether or not we were going to put in a stomach tube, a feeding tube. Anybody who stands out here and says that is not an extraordinary process is absolutely wrong. It is no different than being on a ventilator, forcing air into someone's lungs, than it is forcing food into them. That is exactly what it is.

You are throwing all that up in the air and leaving families and doctors with nowhere to go because this is not setting precedent; this is something to hide something else, some diversion of what is going on in this House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. RENZI . Mr. Speaker, tonight I stand with Terri's father, a man who raised up his little girl and gave his daughter's hand in marriage with the understanding that she would be protected in sickness and in health, for better or for worse; with Terri's mother who brought her into this world and gave her life, and to unite myself with Terri's brother who continues to struggle for his sister. Together, each of them is simply begging for her life.

None of my colleagues on the other side are kin to Terri. None of them are related or are family. The only family she has left wants only to provide her with water and nourishment.

Out of Florida, there is no justice. Justice requires her judges to exercise prudence. Where is the legal analysis that weighs the issue of Terri not being allowed a CAT scan and further medical diagnostic evaluation? Where is the balance of the scales of justice that weighs Terri's family's parental rights with those of her estranged husband? Tonight's vote says we want a second look at this unique case. We want mercy.

Be merciful and find true bravery and justice in preserving the life of Terri Schiavo.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. SOUDER . Mr. Speaker, as a pro-lifer, I have supported the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) to save Terri Schiavo's life from the beginning, but as I have learned more about this case it is not just a case about traditional life debates. Normally those issues are hard, but what is happening in this case is a moral outrage. Terri Schiavo is not dependent upon life supports. She is dependent upon being fed, only she cannot feed herself.

Years ago, my wife, Diane, when she worked at the Fort Wayne State hospital and training center set up a feeding training program for disabled people who could not feed themselves. Should they now die, too? Terri swallows, shows eye movement, and seems to respond. She is a living human being although with limited competency. Those who would let her die can overplay her handicaps, but they cannot change the fact that she is a living human being who is responsive.

Also, her guardian is supposed to protect the person they are guarding, not take the money intended for life support, divert it and offer no rehabilitation efforts. Many others who can swallow their saliva and who can barely do anything beyond that have received help for years. She did not get it because most of it was spent on attorneys by her guardian who wanted to kill her. This is a moral outrage. Her true guardian is her parents at this point. Her husband is in a compromised position. With his fiancee and two children by that fiancee, it would be very inconvenient if she recovered. It is an outrage what is happening.

Furthermore, there are those who would say that States rights here should prevail over the right of handicapped people to be killed. Whether it be the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Medicaid that has funded her because her husband's money that was supposed to be for her rehabilitation was going to lawsuits to kill her or whether it is a simple basic constitutional right to life, they all prevail over States rights.

Let us not let Easter week 2005 become the week America let a helpless, mentally disabled woman starve to death while the whole Nation watched.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

We just heard what would have made an excellent summary in the legal case in this matter, but not a legislative argument. We heard very specific allegations and arguments which are hotly contested about the individual case. The Americans with Disabilities Act was a general law. It has nothing to do with this individual case here.


...

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. BEAUPREZ . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I thank the Speaker, as has already been acknowledged. It is his leadership that has brought this issue to the floor tonight, and again I commend him for that leadership.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much said tonight, much eloquence on both sides, about this issue. I fear sometimes that in our effort to try to come to some sort of conclusion that we actually overthink an issue once in a while. We think just enough to get in the way of our common sense. I hope that is not the case here tonight.

I believe fairly deeply that life does have a purpose. I lost my father 6 months and 6 days ago tonight. And in his very final days, he too needed to be fed by a tube. He needed help with his basic bodily functions, could not get out of his bed, could not take care of himself. But in the 56 years of life I have been granted, Mr. Speaker, I shared the most intimate, the most profound moment I ever had with my father about 36 hours before he passed away, after he could no longer speak, after he could no longer feed himself or care for himself in almost any manner at all. He communicated with his eyes, and he communicated with a hand on my forehead in the most profound way imaginable. I would have regretted deeply had I been denied that moment, and I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, that my father would have regretted having been denied that moment as well.

Outside this Chamber there is a statue of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was the one, of course, who told us about those inalienable rights, those rights that cannot be taken away from us by anyone, those rights that come from our Creator. Those rights, of course, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think if we are going to make mistakes, and God knows certainly that we make mistakes, we are human, but if we are going to make mistakes let us err on the side of life, not denying life but granting life and giving every opportunity to that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership tonight.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself from now on if this precedent is approved this evening. By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of the separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and we will be taking on the role, as we have done during this debate, of judge, of doctor, of priest, of parent, or spouse.

By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a State judge and sends it to a single preselected Federal court, we will forego any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian democracy as envisioned by the Founders and the States as "laboratories of democracy," as articulated by Justice Brandeis, will lie in tatters.

By passing this legislation in a complete absence of hearings, committee markups, no amendments, in complete violation of what we once called "regular order," we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the majority party.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle and morals and values. But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that "this is a great political issue" and that by passing this bill "the pro-life base will be excited"?

If the President of the United States really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, then why did he sign a bill as Governor in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection?

If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the President tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid, a virtual lifeline for health care for millions of our citizens?

When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute, which we should not be doing. Last year, the majority passed two bills stripping the Federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from State courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today, we are sending a case from State courts to the Federal courts, even though it is already the most extensively litigated right-to-die case in the history of the United States.

There is only one principle at stake here: manipulating the court system to achieve predetermined, substantive outcomes. By passing this bill, it should be obvious to many that we are no longer a Nation of laws, but have been reduced to a Nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it does not suit our needs. By passing this law, we diminish our Nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators.

Do not let this bill pass.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the record.

There have been statements made on the actions of then-Governor George W. Bush of Texas. I would like to correct the record on this.

In 1997, then-Governor Bush vetoed an advanced directives bill precisely because it would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of lifesaving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the lifesaving treatment had been defeated.

With no legal protections at all under Texas law, and ongoing programs in Texas hospitals denying treatment with no opportunity to even seek  [*H1721] 
transfer, pro-life groups entered into negotiations with medical groups that finally resulted in the bill that, one, formalized more protections for in-hospital review; two, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer; and, three, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods of time to accomplish transfer. That is what the Governor signed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma . Mr. Speaker, when I came here tonight, I had no intention to speak on this issue for, frankly, the most personal of reasons: a year ago my brother and I were involved in making precisely this same kind of decision where my mother was concerned. We were fortunate. We had been empowered by her to make that decision, we were in agreement on the decision, and the medical professionals and her minister agreed with us about that decision. So we got to make that decision in the privacy and with the dignity that one would want for every family in that situation.

As I listen to the debate tonight, I think the opponents of this measure have made many good and interesting points. They have talked about States' rights, they have talked about precedent, they have discussed separation of powers, and they discussed the importance of the legislative process. All of those are important and legitimate points, and they merit discussion.

But while we discuss them, a life is in the balance, and that is really the only immediate and compelling issue before us tonight.

What do we know about that life and about the conditions of that life? We know that the family disagrees about the condition, about the fate, and about the appropriate course of action where Terri Schiavo is concerned. We know that she is not on artificial life support, only receiving hydration and nutrition. We know that there is split medical testimony about her condition and her quality of life. We know that there are issues of conflict of interest and motivation about those making the final decision. And we know that if we do not act, Terri Schiavo will die.

Great questions often are raised by individual cases, inconvenient cases, cases that break precedent, cases that confront us when we prefer not to be confronted.

Mr. Speaker, life and individual rights trump all else. Where there is doubt, we should err, if err we do, on the side of protecting the rights of any individual, especially when it is the right to life. We should make sure that Terri Schiavo has her day in Federal court. It is the right thing to do, it is the decent thing to do, it is the only thing to do.

...

Mr. CLEAVER . Mr. Speaker, I have served as the senior pastor of St. James United Methodist Church for 30 years, for 30 years. And over those 30 years, I have had countless men and women who have come to me in situations of decisions that had to be made regarding family members; and in the privacy of a home or in a waiting room, we have dealt with those decisions.

Tonight, I want to talk about the shame of this debate. The shame of this debate is that in spite of the fact that we are a great legislative body, we are a body that determines peace and war, but we are not a hallowed body. And the fact that we are engaged in this debate is proof positive of the fact that we are a fractured body. And what we need to also understand is that we live in a world of echoes, a world of echoes. And a thoughtless word falling from the lips of Members here can travel around this country and do even more damage to the divisions that we have in this Nation.

We are doing that. We have even used the inflammatory word "kill." We were doing damage to this country, and it is shameful that we would do this.

...


Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip, the ranking member on our side who is here tonight, to close on our side. The minority leader, who is traveling overseas, is unable, obviously, to be here.

Mr. HOYER . Mr. Speaker, this has been an extraordinarily serious debate. It has been in many ways a real debate, with each Member rising and understanding the seriousness of the issues which we consider. On the one hand, we consider the life of one young woman, a young woman struck by tragedy, shared by her family and by her friends and by her country.

One of the striking facts of American life and American culture is the great importance that America puts on the individual: One life, one swallow that God cares for and plans for. We are here as colleagues who have almost to a person experienced the same kind of pain and trauma that the Schiavo family now faces.

The gentlewoman from Ohio correctly stated that Terri is loved by her husband, by her parents, by her brother, by others in her family. Those of us who have been in that place know how difficult it is.

I had not expected, as my colleagues had not expected, to be back in this House to consider this legislation. When we were called back by the Speaker, and the leader and I discussed the circumstances under which the call would come, trying to accommodate Members as best as possible, I did what I presumed many of you did. I referred to the facts that I could find.

On the one hand, my reaction was that I am concerned that we appear to be a Congress that is flexible on the jurisdiction of courts. When we agree with the decisions that courts make, we leave them jurisdiction. When we think they may make a decision that we want, we try to give them additional jurisdiction. But when we disagree with the courts, we have had legislation on this floor in recent months to take from them jurisdiction. If we pursue that course as a country, I suggest to you that we will become a Nation of men and of politicians, not a Nation of laws.

The fact that we are a Nation of laws has distinguished us very greatly from many other nations of the world, and we have held up that distinction as a critically important one. We now have troops arrayed in Iraq to support that principle, of the individual, of freedom, and of law.

So I believe tonight, Mr. Speaker, that every Member will vote on behalf of Terri Schiavo tonight, but they will see their responsibility in that act differently. I believe, Mr. Speaker, they will see it honestly and sincerely, and realizing the duty they have by lifting their hand and swearing an oath to our constitution and to our country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I did, as I said what I suppose many have done, I went to the proceedings that have occurred in the Terri Schiavo case, caused by the absence of a written directive. I have three daughters, Mr. Speaker. They are all adults. They do not live with me now, but I see them regularly and I love them dearly. And since the loss of their mother, we have become even more close. And I heard the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) speak, and as I heard her speak I felt a tear when she referred to Mr. Wolfson, whom I do not know, but whose report I have read.  [*H1725] 


Mr. Wolfson was asked not by the mother and father, not by the husband, but by the State to try to determine as best he could what the medical evidence led him to conclude. He was not an advocate of the parents or of the husband. He perceived himself correctly as the advocate of Terri Schiavo. His report is a compelling one.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) said that she knows Mr. Wolfson, and knows him to be a man of wisdom and deep compassion and with a sense of responsibility. Then she spoke of her own daughter and such a condition, and the discussion she had with her daughter, and I hope many of you heard her say this, that her daughter said to her that if she was in that state she would not want to be left in that state by her mother, and she said, "No, Mom, if you really loved me, you would let me go to my rest and be with God."

If I thought the Florida courts had dealt with this in a superficial and uncareful way, perhaps, perhaps I would feel that we ought to interpose our view. But no fair reading of the court's decision at the lower court, no fair reading of the disposition by the District Court of the United States, in which they said in quoting Judge Altobrand of the Supreme Court of Florida, "Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any similar cases, have ever been afforded this heightened level of process."

This report is approximately 50 pages long that was issued by Mr. Wolfson. I urge my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to read this. He said he had not. All of us ought to read it. This case, tragically, is not alone in the circumstances that have occurred. The report says that the Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa's family had been told of her intention, the family members, mom and dad, had been told of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.

All of us can understand that, hopefully. The wrenching decision that it would be for a parent to take an action which would inevitably lead to the loss of life of their daughter. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, Mr. Wolfson went on, the family acknowledged that Teresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.

The report seems to indicate to me that any fair reading of it would say that very careful consideration had been given. I know that there are some doctors among us who have looked at reports and perhaps looked at tapes and concluded, contrary to the doctors who have examined her, that this was not the case.

The court, however, in an evidentiary hearing and after due consideration said clear and convincing evidence at the time of trial supported a determination that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen in February 2000 to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures, so that it has been concluded by all of the fact finders in the court systems of the United States, in the State of Florida, under the statutes, as the chairman has pointed out, established by the State of Florida to deal with this extraordinarily difficult human issue because, like birth, death will come to us all.

To some of us it will come in a way that will not raise such wrenching questions, but some few of us will individually and with our families have to face this decision; and properly the system should be followed to protect us so that neither a husband nor a mother nor a father nor anybody else can make that decision in a manner that is not fair, that does not have due process and does not protect us as individuals.

In reading the record, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that the State of Florida in its wisdom provided for that process and accomplished that end. Because of that and because I care about our Federal system and because I care about our Constitution and, yes, because I care not knowing her individually but because I care for her as a child of God, I believe that this legislation should not pass.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. DeLAY . Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's words, but I look at it a little differently. After reading all the records and everything, what I do know is that there is a mother, a father, a brother, and a sister that want Terri Schiavo to live, and they want to take care of her.

I want to thank everybody that has worked on this bill, particularly those in the Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the Senate. They passed this bill unanimously. I want to thank the Democrats in this House that worked on this bill, the Republicans that worked on this bill. Some have tried to make it a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, after 4 days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, now comes the time for action. I say again, the legal and political issues may be complicated, but the moral ones are not. A young woman in Florida is being dehydrated and starved to death. For 58 long hours, her mouth has been parched and her hunger pangs have been throbbing. If we do not act, she will die of thirst. However helpless, Mr. Speaker, she is alive. She is still one of us. And this cannot stand.

Terri Schiavo has survived her Passion weekend, and she has not been forsaken. No more words, Mr. Speaker. She is waiting. The Members are here. The hour has come.

Mr. Speaker, call the vote.
...

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 686.

The question was taken.

The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts . Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were_yeas 203, nays 58, not voting 174,