[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 33 (Thursday, March 17, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2926-S2929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FOR THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if we could have regular order, just a very 
brief explanation and we will proceed. We are going to interrupt the 
budget for a few minutes to discuss a bill we have been talking about 
over the course of the day. It has to do with a particular case in 
Florida. We will talk a little bit about the background for a very 
limited period of time. Then we will resume with the debate on the 
budget and the amendment process. This should take a total of about 15 
or 16 minutes. It is important we do it now. The House is preparing to 
leave--if they have not left--and the immediacy of this bill centers on 
the life of

[[Page S2927]]

a particular person. That is why we are interrupting the debate now.
  With that, I turn to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to many Members of 
this caucus for their cooperation. This is a very difficult issue. It 
has been hard for everyone. I especially applaud my friend from 
Michigan, Senator Levin. I joke with him sometimes, but he is a 
Harvard-educated lawyer, and he really lives every minute of that. He 
understands the law, and he has helped the Senate get something that is 
appropriate for what we are trying to do. I appreciate that very much. 
A number of other Senators, including the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon, have worked with us, and I will not run through the entire 
list, but we have had Senator Baucus, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Harkin, Senator Murray. We have had a lot of cooperation. I apologize 
because I have left some names out. It is very difficult.
  We believe we have an obligation to do something. Something is going 
to happen anyway. I think this will wind up being the best of what we 
could do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to 
the immediate consideration of S. 653, which is at the desk, that 
relates to Terri Marie Schiavo; that there be 15 minutes of debate on 
the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
provided further no amendments be in order; following that debate the 
bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on 
passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the amendment that has been 
worked on the past few hours, is it at the desk?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The language is at the desk.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is at the desk.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also ask consent that this be increased to 
16 minutes because the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, wishes to 
spend a couple minutes on it.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, there is going to be 15 minutes on each side?
  Mr. REID. No. Seven and a half minutes to you, a minute to the 
Senator from Florida, and that is the only request for time I have 
received.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator and withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there has been a little confusion because 
there has been different versions of this bill circulating. I want 
everybody to know the version of the bill we are working on, which the 
unanimous consent relates to, is a brandnew bill as of a few moments 
ago which contains the modifications that we have worked out.
  Mr. REID. That is true.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 653) for the relief of the parents of Theresa 
     Marie Schiavo.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, in 1990, at the age of 27, Theresa Marie 
Schiavo, a Florida resident, suffered a heart attack which resulted in 
brain damage from a lack of oxygen. As a result, she was taken to the 
hospital and a feeding tube was inserted at that time to provide 
nutrition and hydration to keep her alive.
  Over the last 15 years, there has been a very difficult and long 
protracted legal struggle in Florida over whether the parents' wishes 
should prevail, who wish for her to continue to receive food and 
hydration, or the husband's wishes.
  A court order has been entered. The effect of that court order is 
that tomorrow, on March 18 of this year, the food and hydration would 
be withdrawn from this woman.
  The effort of our bill is very narrowly tailored to provide relief to 
this young woman so that a Federal judge in Florida will have the 
opportunity to do a de novo review of all that pertains to this case to 
ensure that her constitutional rights have been protected, to ensure 
that under the 14th amendment due process has been exhausted, and to 
ensure, without precluding either outcome in the case, that the Federal 
review of this case could provide the same type of relief that we would 
provide to any other person in the State of Florida who might be put to 
death as a result of a court order, including those who might be doing 
so because of criminal conduct.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Whoever has time, could they just yield 1 minute to me?
  Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank people who have worked 
out the changes in this bill, which make it a better bill. From my 
perspective, it is still a mistake, and I intend to vote no if there is 
a rollcall vote.
  A number of people have asked me whether I now favor this bill with 
the changes. My answer is no. I think it is a better bill with the 
changes. It is a bill which avoids some damaging precedents.
  We can explain the changes. The most important one is explicitly this 
does not create a precedent. Secondly, it is not a 12-month period the 
parents can proceed in. It is a 30-day period that they have. So we do 
not have a situation where they wait 12 months prior to initiating the 
case.
  The court has discretion to issue a stay. It is not mandatory. It is 
not a bill for the relief of Theresa Marie Schiavo. It is a bill which 
gives the parents the opportunity, within a short period of time, to go 
to court, so it is technically for their relief, not for her relief.
  So I wanted to make it clear to the people in the Senate who asked, 
``Does this mean you now favor this?'' If there is a rollcall, I intend 
to vote no. I think it is a mistake. If it is a voice vote, I intend to 
vote no, for whatever relevance that has, except I do not want to 
mislead anybody, by proposing these things, that now suddenly I think 
this is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Florida for helping accept these modifications. I thank the leaders on 
both sides, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, for a determined effort in 
the last few hours to make certain this bill goes to the House in time.
  I think all of us have in our mind's eye the face of that lovely 
young woman. It is very much in my mind, the smile of that young woman. 
Her parents want to give her a chance. I think of my own daughter. We 
ought to give her a chance. And this is our opportunity to do it. I 
hope very much the House will give this a chance.
  I also thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, who 
first brought this to my attention this afternoon. This is the right 
thing to do, colleagues. Let's pass this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for just a 
brief statement?
  Mr. FRIST. I will.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I talked about everybody except one of the 
most important people, if not the most important person, this 
afternoon, and that is Senator Nelson from Florida. He has been here 
during the whole day, and I want to extend my appreciation to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be very brief. This is an 
opportunity to talk to a number of my colleagues.
  As most people know, this is coming to the floor very quickly. And 
the real, fundamental reason is, if we do not act, there is a good 
chance that a living human being would be starved to death in a matter 
of days. That is why the action now. That is why we are, not rushing 
things, but deliberating quickly, so we can get it to the House of 
Representatives.
  She will be starved to death next Friday. I have had the opportunity 
to look at the video footage upon which the initial facts of this case 
were based. And from my standpoint as a physician, I would be very 
careful before I would come to the floor and say this,

[[Page S2928]]

that the facts upon which this case were based are inadequate. To be 
able to make a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state--which is not 
brain dead; it is not coma; it is a specific diagnosis and typically 
takes multiple examinations over a period of time because you are 
looking for responsiveness--I have looked at the video footage. Based 
on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, 
she does respond.
  That being the case, and also recognizing she has not had a complete 
neurological exam by today's standards--allegedly, she has not had a 
PET scan or MRI scan; not that those are definitive, but before you let 
somebody die, before you starve somebody to death, you want a complete 
exam and a good set of the facts of the case upon which to make that 
decision.
  All we are saying today is, do not starve her to death now--forever, 
I would argue--but establish the facts based on medical science today, 
and then make a determination in the future. That is what we will 
accomplish with passage of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now addressing probably the 
most gut-wrenching decision that an American family can ever face. 
Without even a single hearing, without any debate whatever, the Senate 
is tackling an extraordinarily sensitive concern that involves morals 
and ethics and religious principles, and this troubles me greatly.
  The practice of medicine and the regulation of it throughout our 
history has been properly left by the Constitution to the States. Now, 
regardless of how a Senator might feel about this tragic case in 
Florida--and feelings certainly run very high--a Senator ought to 
reflect on the implications of Federal intrusion before we cast this 
vote.
  I am particularly troubled at the prospect of setting a precedent 
that is going to have the Congress, in effect, playing ``medical czar'' 
in case after case because, colleagues, there will be thousands of 
cases just like this.
  I would ask the Senators, will the steps of the Capitol be the new 
gathering place for America to wrestle with these situations that all 
concerned consider tragic? I think that is a mistake. That is why I am 
going to vote against this legislation.
  Now, this legislation has particular repercussions for the people of 
my State. We have voted twice for assisted suicide. I will tell 
colleagues, I voted against both of those measures on assisted suicide. 
And I joined all of you, I think, here today in opposing Federal 
funding for assisted suicide. But I think these matters are not ones 
where we should trample on the prerogatives of the State quickly. And 
that is what we are doing today--without a single hearing, without a 
single opportunity for us to even hear from those most knowledgeable in 
the field.
  I know many colleagues want to speak on this, and I want to respect 
them. I would note that as a result of the cooperation shown, 
particularly by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator 
Frist and others, there has been language added to this proposal so as 
to at least attempt to protect any State that has acted in this area. 
My guess is, when the Supreme Court tackles this, they are going to 
declare it unconstitutional.
  But as we go to the vote on this matter, I would urge colleagues to 
think about what it is going to mean when people from all over this 
country, all of our States, all of our communities, ask the Congress to 
step in on these kinds of cases. I think that is a very troubling 
precedent. It is my intention to vote no.
  I thank my colleagues, and particularly the majority leader for his 
courtesy. I yield the floor, as many others wish to speak on this 
matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Santorum 
from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank all those involved. I thank the 
two leaders for their conscientious effort in getting this 
accomplished. I thank Senator Conrad, and Senator Martinez, obviously, 
for his sponsorship of this legislation, and all the others who worked 
with us. Even though, as Senator Levin and Senator Wyden said, they 
oppose this legislation, they understood the importance of this issue 
to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and were willing to work with 
us to improve the bill and, nevertheless, to allow us its passage. So I 
want to thank everyone concerned.
  I want to explain, very briefly, what this bill does. This bill 
simply gives a Federal court the ability to review the State court's 
action. Just yesterday, in California, a man was sentenced to death for 
killing two people. He will have ample opportunity to have everything 
the California courts did reviewed by the Federal court under a habeas 
corpus appeal. He will have multiple appeals for Federal courts to look 
to see whether the State court in California properly behaved in 
providing him his due process rights under the 14th amendment--a 
multiple murder.
  Terri Schiavo has done one thing wrong: she did not have a living 
will. But the Florida courts gave her a death sentence. They said that 
her feeding tube and hydration will be removed until she is dead. And 
no one but for this bill and the Federal courts will have any right to 
look to see if her due process rights were followed by the Florida 
courts.
  This does not get us involved in a medical decision. This does not 
get us involved in making decisions of life and death. It simply 
protects the constitutional rights of someone whose only--only--mistake 
was not to have a living will. Should we not give someone who is in 
that situation, who has been sentenced to death by a court on a State 
level, the right for Federal court review to determine whether her 
rights were protected by those courts? That is all we ask in this piece 
of legislation. It is narrow. It applies only to her, to no one else. 
It sets no precedent. We specified, thanks to Senator Wyden's 
amendment, that it sets no precedent for any other action.
  So I would encourage my colleagues, as we just have been through a 
horrific death penalty case in California, to understand that there is 
a proper role for Federal courts to look to make sure that due process 
was followed. That is all we are asking for here today.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 1 minute 41 seconds. The 
majority has 1 minute 54 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Florida, and 42 seconds to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this bill we are considering is 
a good-faith, bipartisan effort to allow a Federal court in my State to 
review this case. One of the improvements of this legislation was that 
it changed the original draft directing a Federal court how it should 
issue injunctive relief because constitutionally we cannot direct a 
Federal court, even in law.
  I support this bill so that this case can be reviewed and decided in 
a timely manner. And, indeed, it underscores the need for us to promote 
living wills so that a person's wants and desires will be carried out 
when they are in an incapacitated condition.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank both Senators from Florida. 
Senator Martinez came to me with this last week. We are doing this 
personal bill because it is so time sensitive. But let's not forget 
that there are hundreds and thousands of people with disabilities, both 
physical and mental, who face similar situations. That is why last week 
when this was brought to my attention, I said to my friend from Florida 
that we ought to do some kind of a habeas type of proceedings for these 
people that are at the end of the rope and yet there is no one speaking 
for them. So while we pass this today for a woman in Florida, I hope 
when we come back after the recess we can work together in a bipartisan 
fashion to fashion some kind of legislation that will give people with 
disabilities the ability to take one last look at their case before the 
plug is pulled.
  I hope we can work on that so we don't have case after case after 
case coming in here, but we can deal with it in a broad, general 
context to protect the rights of people with disabilities.

[[Page S2929]]

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his 
outstanding leadership on this extraordinary remedy for a woman who, 
when I observed her on videotapes, clearly is conscious and has the 
ability to feel.
  I believe in the sanctity of human life. I think most of us feel in 
good conscience we can't just sit by and allow this innocent woman to 
starve to death. Just because she has lost her ability to verbally 
communicate her feelings in no way means that she has lost her desire 
to live or her right to life. When in doubt, I think it is appropriate 
and, indeed, logical to presume that people want to live.
  I am proud of the Senate and Senator Martinez for his leadership in 
helping to protect Terri Schiavo's right to life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. To close, I thank the leadership of the minority and 
majority. I never anticipated that my first legal measure on the floor 
of the Senate would be something such as this. I am very pleased that 
we have had the cooperation we have had. I thank Senators Harkin and 
Conrad and so many others on our side of the aisle who have worked with 
me tirelessly to get to this point and the encouragement they provided 
me.
  By voting for this bill, we will simply be allowing the Federal judge 
to give one last review, one last look in a case that has so many 
questions, that has so many anxieties, and that will provide us the 
kind of assurance before the ultimate fate of this woman is decided to 
know that we did all we could do and that every last measure of review 
was given her, just like it would have been given to a death row inmate 
convicted and sentenced to die.
  I ask for a vote in support of the measure that we might keep Terry 
Schiavo alive and give her a chance to have a Federal review of her 
case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that although I 
believe it is a mistake for Congress to be moving into this area with 
this haste and speed, in the most difficult decisionmaking a family 
could ever face--I intend to vote no--the language in section 1 also 
makes it clear that a Federal court would have to find a violation of a 
constitutional right or a right under U.S. law in order to provide an 
order that she be maintained on life support.
  It is very clear in here that there has to be a violation of the U.S. 
Constitution or Federal law for a Federal court to provide the 
continuation of life support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is on the passage of the bill.
  The bill (S. 653) was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 653

       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.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________