[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 35 (Sunday, March 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1700-H1728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FOR THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

  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

[[Page 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 include for the Record a supplemental legislative 
history on this bill and a letter addressed to me dated today from 
Professor Robert A. Destro, who is the attorney for Robert and Mary 
Schindler, who is next friend of their daughter Theresa Marie Schindler 
Schiavo and is a professor of law at the Columbus School of Law in the 
Catholic University of America.


[[Page H1702]]


         The Catholic University of America Columbus School of 
           Law, Office of the Faculty,
                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2005.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Re S. 686 (identical to H.R. 1452)--A Bill for the Relief of 
         the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo
       Dear Mr. Chairman: You have asked me to comment on the 
     proposed ``Bill for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa 
     Marie Schiavo'' (to be brought up in the House today, which 
     is the same bill the Senate passed earlier today) in my 
     capacity as co-counsel in the Federal litigation filed by 
     Robert and Mary Schindler on behalf of their daughter, 
     Theresa Marie Schiavo. On behalf of the legal team and the 
     family, we thank you and your colleagues in both the House 
     and the Senate for your efforts, and those of your respective 
     staffs, on behalf of Terri Schiavo.


                     Terri Schiavo's Federal Claims

       This case has attracted worldwide attention--including that 
     of the United States Congress and the political branches of 
     the State of Florida--for two reasons. The first is that the 
     situation in which the members of Terri Schiavo's family find 
     themselves is a human tragedy with ``real-time'' life and 
     death consequences. The second reason is the one that brings 
     us before Congress and the federal courts. Terri's parents, 
     Robert and Mary Schindler, allege that neither they nor their 
     daughter got a fair trial in the Florida courts. Terri 
     Schiavo is the first incapacitated person in the history of 
     the State of Florida to have been involved in a ``substituted 
     judgment'' proceeding where there is a significant difference 
     of opinion over both the nature of her condition (i.e. ``Is 
     Terri actually in a persistent vegetative state [PVS]?'') and 
     her wishes (i.e. ``What would Terri say about continued 
     nutrition and hydration if she could speak to us today?''
       Getting accurate answers to both of these questions is 
     critical. Not only does Terri's life hang in the balance, so 
     too does the Nation's understanding of how a society 
     committed to both individual rights and the rule of law 
     should determine the wishes of persons with severe brain 
     injuries. The Florida courts spent many years trying to 
     figure out what to do in such a case. Unfortunately for Terri 
     Schiavo--and for the nation--they did not apply the Florida 
     statutes that usually govern such cases. They created new 
     constitutional laws.
       Terri's parents have alleged that the law created by 
     Florida courts in Terri's case violated both Terri's rights 
     and theirs because:
       1. The guardianship court compromised his judicial 
     independence when the he appointed himself, rather than an 
     independent guardian ad litem, to serve as Terri Schiavo's 
     health care proxy.
       2. The Florida courts permitted Terri's husband, Michael 
     Schiavo and his attorney to represent Terri's interests 
     notwithstanding the Florida courts own admission that his 
     interests were adverse to hers.
       3. The Florida courts did not appoint a guardian ad litem 
     for Terri, nor did they provide her with counsel to argue and 
     protect her interests. The result was a situation in which 
     Terri herself had no assistance of counsel in a case in which 
     her life hangs in the balance.
       4. The way the Florida courts applied the state's law and 
     constitution to incapacitated persons with severe cognitive 
     disabilities violated her rights under the Equal Protection 
     Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. After Terri's case, the 
     only persons in the State of Florida who are not entitled to 
     an independent judiciary and effective representation are 
     incapacitated persons who cannot speak for themselves.
       5. The state court order for under which Terri's nutrition 
     and hydration is currently being withheld was entered after a 
     proceeding tainted by ``structural defects'' that call the 
     integrity of the entire fact finding process in to question. 
     As a result, we simply do not know either ``what Terri 
     wants'' or what her current medical condition actually is.
       6. The state court order violates the standards set out in 
     both federal and state precedents that recognize the right to 
     self-determination in health-care decisionmaking. Cruzan v. 
     Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 280 
     (1990) and Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 12 (Fla. 
     1990). Both of those cases recognize that accuracy, not 
     finality, is essential in any case where a guardian has asked 
     for a judicial decree authorizing the death of the a person 
     with a severe disability such as Terri's.


                 The Need for the Proposed Legislation

       Review of Terri's federal claims by a federal court is an 
     essential step in protecting her right to privacy. We have 
     argued in federal court that Terri's federal rights were 
     violated by the state courts, and that her continued custody 
     in the guardianship violates her constitutional rights. 
     Generally speaking, such reviews can take place in only two 
     ways: 1) direct review by the Supreme Court of the United 
     States by Petition for Certiorari; or 2) a federal writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       Because Terri will die within two weeks from starvation and 
     dehydration, the traditional option of a petition to the 
     Supreme Court of the United States is not an option. It 
     simply takes too long. We did try an emergency motion for a 
     stay, but the Court denied it on Thursday, March 17, 2005. As 
     a result, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler's only option was a petition 
     to the United States District Court for the Middle District 
     of Florida asking for a writ of habeas corpus.
       Unfortunately for Terri, the habeas corpus statutes are 
     focused almost exclusively on prisoners. Getting the courts 
     to understand that people in Terri's situation are also 
     entitled to habeas relief is both difficult and time 
     consuming. On Friday, March 18, 2005 the United States 
     District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed 
     Mr. and Mrs. Schindler's attempt to get a fair trial for 
     Terri because Judge Moody believed: (a) that Terri is not a 
     ``person in custody'' entitled to habeas relief; (b) that 
     Mr. and Mrs. Schindler do not have standing to argue that 
     Terri did not get a fair trial; and (c) that the federal 
     courts are duty bound to respect the findings of the 
     Florida courts concerning her wishes.
       Because we believe that federal law is to the contrary, we 
     asked for, and received, a ``Certificate of Appealability'' 
     from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 
     Circuit, which is currently considering our request that the 
     District Court give Terri and her parents a hearing on their 
     federal claims.
       S. 686 (which is identical to H.R. 1542) is absolutely 
     necessary to guarantee a federal hearing of Terri's claims. 
     This law is absolutely necessary to cut through the 
     procedural barriers that were designed by Congress to make it 
     difficult to litigate the claims of convicted criminals. 
     Terri, however, is no criminal. She is a person with a severe 
     brain injury whose only ``crime'' is that she is 
     incapacitated.
       Section 5 guarantees that this law protects only Terri's 
     existing rights under federal law. It neither creates new 
     rights, nor any power for federal courts that does not 
     already exist. This provision also resolves any problems that 
     I may have had with prior drafts of the legislation proposed 
     in the Senate. Since the law will not change any law already 
     applicable to Terri, it should eliminate any claim that the 
     law is designed to overturn either a state or federal 
     judicial decree, see Plant v. Spendthrift Farm.
       Section 1 gives the United States District Court for the 
     Middle District of Florida specific jurisdiction to hear 
     Terri's federal claims. We believe that it has that 
     jurisdiction already, but Judge Moody disagreed. Since we do 
     not have time to appeal to the Supreme Court if the Eleventh 
     Circuit agrees with Judge Moody, we need this law if Terri's 
     rights are to be vindicated before she dies from starvation 
     and dehydration.
       Section 2 resolves any questions concerning the right of 
     Terri's parents to argue in court on Terri's behalf. Judge 
     Moody questioned their standing. This bill eliminates that 
     procedural hurdle.
       Section 3 allows the court to grant an injunction against 
     further interference with Terri's rights should we prevail in 
     our claim that she did not get a fair trial. This provision 
     guarantees that Terri will have the same remedies as a 
     condemned criminal.
       Section 4 is both a ``sunset provision'' and a guarantee 
     that we have the time we need to bring her case to court. 
     Rest assured, the case will be filed as soon as the President 
     signs this bill.
       Section 6--Terri's case has nothing to do with ``assisted 
     suicide'' or ``the right to die.'' This case is about one 
     thing: Did Terri get a fair trail?
       Section 7--We read this as a promise that Congress will 
     give serious attention to the rights of persons with severe 
     cognitive disabilities. We applaud its sponsors for making 
     that promise.


    The House Bill Does Not Violate Either Separation of Powers or 
                               Federalism

       I raised questions concerning the federal court's 
     unwillingness to undertake a review of state court 
     proceedings, not only because of the respect that federal 
     courts owe the Florida courts, but also because two cases 
     urge caution in framing private legislation. We cannot afford 
     to create a problem that would make this private relief bill 
     unconstitutional.
       The changes Congress proposes to make in the House bill to 
     be brought up in the House today provide an even more 
     effective means that attempted by Governor Bush and the 
     Florida Legislature in ``Terri's Law,'' Laws of Florida, 
     Chapter 2003-418. Governor Bush has conceded that Terri did 
     not get a fair trial, and urged the Supreme Court of the 
     United States to review the proceedings in the Florida 
     courts. There is no violation of either separation of powers 
     or federalism here.
       Finally, I concur with the legal analysis Chairman 
     Sensenbrenner will be submitting into the Congressional 
     Record regarding the constitutionality of the House bill to 
     be brought up today.


                               conclusion

       We hope that this answers the questions that Members and 
     Senators may have. We thank you, once again, on behalf of the 
     family and on behalf of our client, Terri Schiavo.
           Sincerely,
     Robert A. Destro,
       Attorney for Robert and Mary Schindler, as next friend of 
     their Daughter, Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo.

[[Page H1703]]

     
                                  ____
           S. 686 Is Consistent With Supreme Court Precedent

 Supplemental Legislative History of Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, 
 Jr. For S. 686, For the Relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

       The bill for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie 
     Schiavo (S. 686) does not create a new cause of action. 
     Rather, it simply allows a de nove review of ``alleged 
     violation[s] of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the 
     Constitution of laws of the United States'' in Federal court. 
     Further, S. 686 makes 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 the several States.''
       Consequently, S. 686 does not ``reopen [] (or direct [] the 
     reopening of) final judgments in a whole class of cases [or] 
     in a particular suit.'' Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,; 514 
     U.S. 211, 227 (1995). This is because any final determination 
     made by the Florida courts regarding Florida State law will 
     remain final under S. 686 S. 686 merely requires that a 
     Federal court assume jurisdiction over the Federal law claims 
     of Theresa Marie Schiavo. Doing so for Theresa Marie Schiavo 
     is proper, as the Supreme Court in Plaut made clear that 
     ``The premise that there is something wrong with 
     particularized legislative action is of course questionable. 
     While legislatures usually act through laws of general 
     applicability, that is by no means their only legitimate mode 
     of action.'' Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 
     239 n.9 (1995).
       S. 686 also presents no problems regarding retrospective 
     application. The Supreme Court has held that ``A statute does 
     not operate `retrospectively' merely because it is applied in 
     a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's 
     enactment . . ., or upsets expectations based in prior law. 
     Rather, the court must ask whether the new provision attaches 
     new legal consequences to events completed before its 
     enactment.'' Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 
     269-70 (1994). S. 686 does not attach any new legal 
     consequences to events completed before its enactment.'' S. 
     686 merely ``changes the tribunal that is to hear the case,'' 
     and it is entirely proper to have a Federal court hear 
     Federal law claims. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 
     U.S. 244, 274-75 (1994) (``Application of a new 
     jurisdictional rule usually takes away no substantive right 
     but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case. 
     Present law normally governs in such situations because 
     jurisdictional statutes speak to the power of the court 
     rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties . . . 
     Changes in procedural rules may often be applied in suits 
     arising before their enactment without raising concerns about 
     retroactivity . . . Because rules of procedure regulate 
     secondary rather than primary conduct, the fact that a new 
     procedural rules was instituted after the conduct giving rise 
     to the suite does not make application of the rule at trial 
     retroactive.'') (quotations and citations omitted.)

  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.

                              {time}  2115

  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

[[Page 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the report of the guardian ad 
litem.

                             [Dec. 1, 2003]

   A Report to Governor Jeb Bush and the 6th Judicial Circuit in the 
                    Matter of Theresa Marie Schiavo

  (Submitted by Jay Wolfson, DrPH, JD, Guardian Ad Litem for Theresa 
                             Marie Schiavo)

       Theresa Marie Schiavo was born in the Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania area on 3 December 1963 to Robert and Mary 
     Schindler. She has two younger siblings, Robert Jr., and 
     Susan. Through the age of 18, Theresa was, according to her 
     parents, very overweight, until she chose to lose weight with 
     the guidance of a physician. She dropped from 250 pounds to 
     around 150 pounds, at which time she met Michael Schiavo. 
     They dated for many months and married in November of 1984. 
     The Schiavo and Schindler families were close and friendly.
       Theresa and Michael moved to Florida in 1986 and were 
     followed shortly thereafter by Theresa's parents and 
     siblings. Theresa worked for the Prudential Life Insurance 
     Company and Michael was a restaurant manager.
       About three years later, without the apparent knowledge of 
     her parents, Theresa and Michael sought assistance in 
     becoming pregnant through an obstetrician who specialized in 
     fertility services. For over a year, Theresa and Michael 
     received fertility services and counseling in order to 
     enhance their strongly held desire to have a child. By this 
     time, Theresa's weight had dropped even further, to 110 
     pounds. She was very proud of her fabulous figure and her 
     stunning appearance, wearing bikini bathing suits for the 
     first time and taking great pride in her improved good looks. 
     Testimony and photographs bare witness to these facts.
       On the tragic early morning of 25 February 1990, Theresa 
     collapsed in the hallway of her apartment, waking Michael, 
     who called Theresa's family and 911. The lives of Theresa, 
     Michael and the Schindlers were to change forever.
       Theresa suffered a cardiac arrest. During the several 
     minutes it took for paramedics to arrive, Theresa experienced 
     loss of oxygen to the brain, or anoxia, for a period 
     sufficiently long to cause permanent loss of brain function. 
     Despite heroic efforts to resuscitate, Theresa remained 
     unconscious and slipped into a coma. She was intubated, 
     ventilated and trached, meaning that she was given life 
     saving medical technological interventions, without which she 
     surely would have died that day.
       The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a 
     dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. 
     Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in 
     the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The 
     cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be 
     linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea 
     each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records 
     note that the combination of aggressive weight loss, diet 
     control and excessive hydration raised questions about 
     Theresa suffering from bulimia, an eating disorder, more 
     common among women than men, in which purging through 
     vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control becomes 
     obsessive.
       Theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at 
     Humana Northside Hospital, eventually emerging from her coma 
     state, but not recovering consciousness. On 12 May 1990, 
     following extensive testing, therapy and observation, she was 
     discharged to the College Park skilled care and 
     rehabilitation facility. Forty-nine days later, she was 
     transferred again to Bayfront Hospital for additional, 
     aggressive rehabilitation efforts. In September of 1990, she 
     was brought home, but following only three weeks, she was 
     returned to the College Park facility because the ``family 
     was overwhelmed by Terry's care needs.''
       On 18 June 1990, Michael was formally appointed by the 
     court to serve as Theresa's legal guardian, because she was 
     adjudicated to be incompetent by law. Michael's appointment 
     was undisputed by the parties.
       The clinical records within the massive case file indicate 
     that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and 
     swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical, 
     occupational and speech therapies.
       Theresa's husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary 
     Schindler, were virtual 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. In late 
     Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, 
     formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no 
     evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, 
     where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator 
     implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring 
     for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to 
     Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred 
     to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she 
     received 24-hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech 
     and recreational therapies.
       Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical 
     assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, 
     only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye 
     opening, no communication system and little change 
     cognitively or functionally. On 19 July 1991 Theresa was 
     transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. 
     Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, 
     occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.
       Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated 
     a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who 
     had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the 
     malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, 
     resulting in a

[[Page H1705]]

     two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for 
     Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic 
     damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a 
     trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with South Trust 
     Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund 
     was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael 
     Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence 
     in the record of the trust administration documents of any 
     mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this 
     matter are excellently maintained.
       After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of 
     disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo 
     openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned 
     the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made 
     allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his 
     behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition. 
     Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal 
     of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had 
     been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. 
     His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care 
     by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the 
     administrator as ``a nursing home administrator's 
     nightmare''. It is notable that through more than thirteen 
     years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.
       By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's 
     condition changed. During the previous four years, he had 
     insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover 
     and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart 
     and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of 
     consistent medical reports indicating that there was little 
     or no likelihood for her improvement.
       In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection 
     and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating 
     physician, elected not to treat the infection and 
     simultaneously imposed a ``do not resuscitate'' order should 
     Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility 
     initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael 
     canceled the orders. Following the incident involving the 
     infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing 
     facility.
       Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions 
     and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on 
     his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for 
     Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three 
     years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to 
     accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather 
     than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took 
     Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on 
     with his life--something he was actively encouraged to do by 
     the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was 
     even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his 
     in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior 
     to the malpractice case ending.
       As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, 
     the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to 
     determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. His 
     report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions 
     and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to 
     Theresa. After two more years of legal contention, the 
     Schindlers action against Michael was dismissed with 
     prejudice. Efforts to remove Michael as Guardian were 
     attempted in subsequent years, without success.
       Hostilities increased and the Schindlers and Michael 
     Schiavo did not communicate directly. By June of 1996, the 
     court had to order that copies of medical reports be shared 
     with the Schindlers and that all health care providers be 
     permitted to discuss Theresa's condition with the 
     Schindlers--something Michael had temporarily precluded.
       In 1997, six years after Theresa's tragic collapse, Michael 
     elected to initiate an action to withdraw artificial life 
     support from Theresa. More than a year later, in May of 1998, 
     the first petition to discontinue life support was entered. 
     The court appointed Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as 
     Guardian Ad Litem to review the request for withdrawal, a 
     standard procedure.
       Mr. Pearse's report, submitted to the court on 20 December 
     1998 contains what appear to be objective and challenging 
     findings. His review of the clinical record confirmed that 
     Theresa's condition was that of a diagnosed persistent 
     vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Mr. Pearse's 
     investigation concluded that the statements of Mrs. 
     Schindler, Theresa's mother, indicated that Theresa displayed 
     special responses, mostly to her, but that these were not 
     observed or documented.
       Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the 
     Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael 
     Schiavo's testimony regarding the basis for his decision to 
     withdraw life support--a conversation he had with his wife, 
     Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential 
     conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual 
     funds in Theresa's trust account following her death affected 
     Michael and the Schindlers--but he placed greater emphasis on 
     the impact it might have had on Michael's decision to 
     discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. 
     Pearse's report, more than $700,000 remained in the 
     guardianship estate.
       Mr. Pearse concludes that Michael's hearsay testimony about 
     Theresa's intent is ``necessarily adversely affected by the 
     obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at 
     law . . .'' and ``. . . by the chronology of this case . . 
     .'', specifically referencing Michael's change in position 
     relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice 
     award.
       Mr. Pearse recommended that the petition for removal of the 
     feeding tube be denied, or in the alternative, if the court 
     found the evidence to be clear and convincing, the feeding 
     tube should be withdrawn.
       Mr. Pearse also recommended that a Guardian Ad Litem 
     continue to serve in all subsequent proceedings.
       In response to Mr. Pearse's report, Michael Schiavo filed a 
     Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes 
     that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael 
     Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself 
     entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship 
     estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse's 
     concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly 
     solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they 
     might become the heirs and also choose to terminate 
     artificial life support. Further, significant chronological 
     deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and 
     prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse's 
     report.
       The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of 
     Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias. In 
     February of 1999, Mr. Pearse tendered his petition for 
     additional authority or discharge. He was discharged in June 
     of 1999 and no new Guardian Ad Litem was named.
       Actions by the Schindlers to remove Michael as Guardian and 
     to block the petition to remove artificial life support took 
     on a frenetic quality at this juncture. More external parties 
     on both sides made appearances as potential interveners.
       On 11 February 2000, consequent to hearings and the 
     presentation of competent evidence, Judge Greer ordered the 
     removal of Theresa's artificial life support. The Schindlers 
     aggressively sought means by which to stop the removal of 
     Theresa's feeding tube. Most of the motions in these efforts 
     were denied, but not without apparent careful and detailed 
     review by the court, often involving hearings at which 
     considerable latitude was afforded the Schindlers in their 
     efforts to proffer testimony and admit evidence.
       The motion and hearing process continued through 2000. Then 
     the Schindlers sought to introduce new evidence that was 
     believed to be of a sufficiently substantial nature as to 
     change the court's decision regarding the removal of the 
     feeding tube. The hearings and testimony before the trial 
     court leading to the decision to discontinue artificial life 
     support included admitted hearsay from Theresa's brother-in-
     law (Michael Schiavo's brother) and his wife (Michael 
     Schiavo's sister-in-law) along with testimony from Michael.
       The testimony of these parties referenced specific 
     conversations in which Theresa commented about her desire 
     never to be placed on artificial life support. The testimony 
     reflected conversations at or proximate to funerals of close 
     family members who had been on artificial life support. The 
     context and content of the testimony, while hearsay, was 
     deemed credible and consistent and was used by the court as a 
     supporting basis for its decision to discontinue artificial 
     life support.
       The Schindlers' new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely 
     on Michael Schiavo's role as Guardian. It related to his 
     personal romantic life, the fact that he had relationships 
     with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide 
     appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was 
     wasting the assets within the guardianship account, and that 
     he was no longer competent to represent Theresa's best 
     interests.
       Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family 
     included very personal statements about their desire and 
     intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the 
     course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by 
     members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief 
     that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. 
     Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by 
     family members that in the event Theresa should contract 
     diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they 
     would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she 
     to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart 
     surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that 
     appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable 
     condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from 
     having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware 
     of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. 
     Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, 
     Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told 
     them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, 
     they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult 
     trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a 
     diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
       The court denied the Schindlers' motions to remove the 
     guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and 
     in some instances, not relevant. It set a date for the 
     artificial life support to be discontinued, as of 24 April 
     2001.
       The decision was appealed to the Florida 2nd District Court 
     of Appeals (DCA), and was affirmed in January 2001. The 
     requested appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was denied on 
     23 April 2001, one day before the

[[Page H1706]]

     scheduled removal of Theresa's feeding tube. On 24 April 
     2001, Theresa Schiavo's artificial feeding tube was clamped, 
     and she ceased receiving nutrition and hydration. Under 
     normal circumstances, Theresa would die naturally within a 
     week to ten days.
       Two days after the clamping of Theresa's feeding tube, the 
     Schindlers filed a civil action in their capacity as 
     ``natural guardians'' for Theresa. The trial court, in 
     emergency review, granted a temporary injunction and the tube 
     was unclamped. Michael Schiavo filed an emergency motion to 
     vacate the injunction. This led to the second review and 
     appeal to the 2nd DCA.
       The 2nd DCA found that the intention of Florida Statute 765 
     with respect to matters such as Theresa's, is to help 
     expedite proceedings of the court when decisions have been 
     made by the bona fide guardian. The 2nd DCA also noted that 
     the Court had acted independently as proxy decision maker 
     regarding the removal of artificial life support.
       In October 2001, the 2nd DCA concluded that the Schindlers 
     ``have presented no credible evidence suggesting new 
     treatment can restore Mrs. Schiavo.'' The injunction was 
     lifted and plans moved forward to discontinue artificial 
     nutrition.
       Fresh and exhaustive motions regarding new evidence were 
     again crafted and proffered to the trial court by the 
     Schindlers resulting in a lengthy hearing. Affidavits from 
     medical doctors and others alleged that Theresa's condition 
     could be improved.
       In particular, the sworn statement of a single, osteopathic 
     physician, Dr. Webber, claimed that he could improve 
     Theresa's condition and had done so in like and similar 
     cases.
       The quality of evidence in this affidavit was marginal, but 
     the court allowed it to create a colorable entitlement to 
     additional medical review. The case was remanded to the trial 
     court with the charge that each side would select two expert 
     physicians (a neurologist or a neurosurgeon, according to the 
     court) and agree between them regarding a fifth, and if they 
     could not agree on the fifth, the court would select it.
       By May of 2002, the physicians were selected by both sides, 
     but no agreement could be reached about a fifth, so the court 
     selected one. Curiously and surprisingly, Dr. Webber, who had 
     served as the basis for this entire process at the 2nd DCA, 
     did not participate in the exams or the procedure.
       Each of the physicians was afforded access to Theresa for 
     the purpose of conducting a thorough examination. Video tape 
     recordings were made of some of the examinations along with 
     segments in which family members interacted with Theresa. The 
     physicians were deposed and proffered testimony regarding 
     their findings. Written reports of the examinations were 
     prepared by all five physicians, and a very detailed hearing 
     was held in October of 2002.
       The clinical evidence presented by the five physicians 
     reflected their examinations and reviews of the medical 
     records. Four of the physicians were board certified in 
     neurology, as suggested by the court, and one physician was 
     board certified in radiology and hyperbaric medicine. All of 
     the physicians had excellent pedigrees of medical training. 
     The scientific quality, value and relevance of the testimony 
     varied. The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo 
     provided strong, academically based, and scientifically 
     supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and 
     convincing by the court. Of the two physicians testifying for 
     the Schindlers, only one was a neurologist, the other was a 
     radiologist/hyperbaric physician. The testimony of the 
     Schindler's physicians was substantially anecdotal, and was 
     reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing.
       The fifth physician, chosen by the court because the two 
     parties could not agree, presented scientifically grounded, 
     academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be 
     clear and convincing by the court.
       Following exhaustive testimony and the viewing of video 
     tapes, the trial court concluded that no substantial evidence 
     had been presented to indicate any promising treatment that 
     might improve Theresa's cognition. The court sought to glean 
     scientific, case, researchbased foundations for the 
     contentions of the Schindler's physician experts, but 
     received principally anecdotal information.
       Evidence presented by Michael Schiavo's two physicians and 
     the fifth physician selected by the court was reasonably 
     deemed clear and convincing in support of Theresa being in a 
     persistent vegetative state with no hope for improvement. 
     Simultaneous appeals of this decision and renewed actions to 
     remove Michael Schiavo as Guardian were initiated based upon 
     new evidence.
       The June 2003 appeal to the 2nd DCA was Schiavo IV. The 2nd 
     DCA panel of judges engaged in what approximated a de novo 
     review of all of the facts, testimony and video tapes 
     presented at trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial 
     court's ruling and its conclusions, and in addition, ordered 
     the trial court to set a hearing date for removal of the 
     artificial life support.
       The trial court set 15 October 2003 as the date for the 
     removal of Theresa's artificial nutrition tube.
       The Schindler's renewed efforts to remove Michael Schiavo 
     as Guardian, and to disqualify judges, were not successful. 
     Multiple amicus briefs and affidavits from parties supporting 
     the Schindlers were submitted through the Schindler's actions 
     and in some instances, independently to the court.
       By mid 2003, the landscape and texture of Theresa Schiavo's 
     case underwent profound changes. National media coverage, 
     active involvement by groups advocating right to life, and 
     the attention of the Governor's office and the Florida 
     Legislature, catapulted Theresa's case into a different 
     dimension.
       The Schindlers, acting on behalf of Theresa, filed a motion 
     in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction to 
     stay the removal of the artificial life support from Theresa, 
     scheduled to occur on 15 October 2003. On 6 October 2003, 
     Florida Governor Jeb Bush filed an Amicus brief in support of 
     the motion for a preliminary injunction. The brief argues 
     that removal of artificial nutrition, resulting in death, 
     should be avoided if that person can take oral nutrition and 
     hydration. The Governor predicates his memorandum on the 
     pivotal question as to whether Theresa could ingest food and 
     water on her own. That Theresa is in a diagnosed, persistent 
     vegetative state is explicitly recognized.
       On 15 October 2003, Theresa Maria Schiavo's artificial 
     feeding tube was disconnected, for the second time.
       The Florida legislature, in special session, passed HB 35 E 
     on 21 October 2003, authorizing the Governor to stay the 
     disconnection of the artificial feeding tube and required, 
     among other things, the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem to 
     produce this report.
       On that same day, 21 October 2003, the artificial feeding 
     tube was re-inserted per the stay ordered by Governor Bush. 
     Other suits and actions were initiated immediately the 
     governor became a named party in the matters involving 
     Theresa Schiavo.

  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

[[Page 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.

                              {time}  2130

  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

[[Page 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.

                              {time}  2145

  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

[[Page 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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, this is a profound tragedy for the Schiavo 
family, and I sympathize with all of the family members. It is also a 
deeply personal matter, one which should be decided within the family. 
No one wants this personal decision to be made by 536 politicians: 435 
Members of the House, 100 Members of the Senate, and the President of 
the United States.
  The facts of this tragedy, and the competing wishes of the family 
members, have already been determined by those best placed to do so. 
Those determinations have been repeatedly ratified over the past 7 
years, by 19 judges in more than 10 trials, appeals or other 
proceedings. None of those decisions have been reversed, until today. 
In an unprecedented procedure, the United States House of 
Representatives and the United States Senate are voting to direct a 
Federal court to relitigate this entire matter.
  There are deeply personal and private issues that are discussed by 
every married couple. These discussions occur in bedrooms across 
America. Also, intensely personal decisions are made in hospital and 
hospice rooms across this country. By forcing this vote through 
Congress, the Republican leadership is demonstrating that no bedroom in 
America and no hospital room in this land is beyond the reach and power 
of this Federal Government. This is wrong.
  The Republican leadership has transformed a profound tragedy for the 
Schiavo family into a tragedy for the entire Nation. It is my hope that 
from this tragedy more people will understand the importance of 
determining their own futures and that of their family in the form of 
living wills.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 2,000 years ago Jesus Christ 
entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, marking the beginning of a week that 
throughout history and the world over has signified the sanctity of 
human life. Tonight we are here on Palm Sunday to afford the greatest 
presumption of life possible under our United States Constitution to a 
woman who has never truly been afforded representation and whose wishes 
are truly unknown.
  This is not about the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage. That is a 
matter between Terri and Michael. Mr. Schiavo has got some answering to 
do himself. Any insinuation otherwise is clear hypocrisy and nothing 
more. And this is not about congressional interference into a family 
issue. I agree that it should be a family issue.
  The problem is Terri's parents want her to live, and Terri's husband 
wants her to die. And Terri did not use a living will to tell us what 
she would want. So before an irreversible decision is made, her country 
must afford her the due process to which she is entitled under the 14th 
amendment of our Constitution. That means that the State of Florida may 
not starve Terri to death unless every legal resource to prevent it has 
been taken. Death by starvation, as we have already heard tonight, is 
lengthy and incredibly painful. And Terri Schiavo can feel pain. The 
bill that we are going to pass is going to give her due process before 
she is sentenced to die in this painful manner.
  Convicted serial killers and other death row inmates are afforded 
Federal review in their cases. The Constitution confers upon this 
Congress the power to effect the authority on the Federal courts to 
conduct this kind of review, and that is what I hope we do here 
tonight. It is square within our powers, it respects the separation 
between the legislative and the judicial branches, and it holds to the 
principles of federalism.
  There is going to be hollow rhetoric in this Chamber tonight about 
the need for investigations and about reviewing facts before acting and 
about attempts to politicize religious beliefs. But where were these 
arguments last Wednesday night when we passed a bill for Terri 
unanimously under voice vote? And where were these arguments Friday 
afternoon when Judge Greer ignored a congressional subpoena designed to 
allow us the chance to get more information?
  The Supreme Court has stated that the authority to subpoena is an 
``indispensable ingredient'' of Congress' legislative power. Judge 
Greer's Friday order expressly disregards that authority, and he should 
be held in contempt of this body. Like Michael Schiavo, the Judge has 
some answering to do.
  We have a woman who hasn't had food or drink in over two days. We 
made efforts in the ordinary course of legislative business to afford 
Terri Schiavo her constitutional rights, and they were rejected. Now, 
we are left with no choice but to implement extraordinary means in the 
middle of the night.
  Whether you're using morality, or religion, or the Golden Rule, or 
legal analysis to guide your decision, at the root of all this is a 
living, breathing American citizen who has been deprived of her rights. 
This measure will correct that, so I urge all my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), again someone who has worked on 
this for quite some time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, tonight I join millions of 
Floridians and Americans hoping and praying for Terri and her family at 
this incredibly difficult time. Terri Schiavo's case is a tragedy we 
all hope and pray our own families will never go through. And tonight 
this Congress is about to commit a travesty.
  I think we can agree the impact of this legislation extends far 
beyond

[[Page H1710]]

Terri Schiavo. Tonight, congressional leaders are poised to appoint 
this Congress as a judge and a jury. These actions are a threat to our 
democracy. More than 200 years ago, our forefathers designed government 
with three separate, yet equal, branches. This Congress is about to 
overturn the separation of powers by disregarding the laws of Florida 
and the decision of a judge that have never been reversed. This 
Congress is on the verge of telling States and judges and juries that 
their laws, their decisions do not matter.
  Multiple courts have had an opportunity to rule in Terri's case, 
including the United States Supreme Court, Federal district courts, and 
the Florida Supreme Court. As Justice Scalia has said himself in end-
of-life cases like this, ``The Federal courts have no business in this 
field. American law has always accorded this power to the States.''
  This Congress should respect the law and the rulings of courts and 
not trample the Constitution. If we do not draw a line in the sand 
tonight, what limit is there to the democratic principles that this 
Congress is prepared to violate? What limit is there to the liberties 
that we might trample upon?
  For those of us that are Floridians, this is a very painful issue. 
Not just because we represent many, many people, Democrats, Republicans 
or people that are not particularly political who have living wills, 
who have wishes they expect to be honored and not interfered with. We 
are also deeply saddened because we have been in the middle of this 
saga for quite some time, and it is very important you know this is 
just the latest chapter.
  In 2003, unhappy with the decisions of the court, the Governor and 
the State legislature in Florida attempted to change the rules that 
controlled Terri's wishes and to pass what was referred to as Terri's 
Law, giving Governor Bush the authority to reinsert the feeding tube. 
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that law unconstitutional, and the 
United States Supreme Court refused to hear Governor Bush's appeal.
  Last week, the Florida legislature and the Governor attempted yet a 
second time to change the rules that would cover the enforcement of 
what was found to be Terri's wishes. For the good of Floridians, for 
the good of the country, after the House had passed the bill and the 
Governor continued to pursue it, very courageous members of the Florida 
senate and the Florida house, on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, 
refused to make the same mistake a second time. One of the top 
Republicans in the Florida house said, ``The legislature should stay 
out of family court issues.''
  The State legislation that failed in the State senate died when some 
of the leading Republican Senators said, ``We cannot and should not 
sacrifice our oaths as political officers on the altar of political 
convenience.''
  These were State legislators recognizing the limits of their power. 
Here tonight in the United States Congress, will we recognize the 
appropriate limits of our power?
  Leading the charge in this debate are several physicians who are 
Members of Congress. I think it is fair to say none of them have 
examined Terri Schiavo. I seriously doubt any of them had a chance to 
review the medical records. Instead, many of them, many Members of 
Congress, are forced to rely upon a videotape that is several years old 
that does not begin to tell the story.
  Let us keep in mind neither this House nor Senate has had a single 
hearing, has heard from a single witness, has provided any meaningful 
opportunity for the public to participate in this very important 
debate.
  The bill under consideration tonight essentially does one thing: it 
starts the process all over again with a different judge, an attempt to 
achieve a different result, a different finding as to Terri's wishes or 
simply to delay the enforcement of her wishes.
  It has been described by the chairman of the committee that what this 
bill does, if I heard him correctly, is to provide an opportunity for 
Terri's parents to assert their rights under the United States 
Constitution. They have always had that right. They had that right in 
State court. They had that right in Federal court. They had that right 
in the United States Supreme Court, which turned down the appeal.

                              {time}  2200

  This bill does not create any new rights. It simply creates a new 
judge in an attempt to achieve a different result or to delay a 
different decision.
  One of the chief Senate sponsors of the bill said earlier today that 
the purpose and the effect of the bill in his judgment was to cause the 
Federal judge who will hear this case to reinsert the tube.
  Before we vote tonight, I would like to ask the Members to ask one 
question of themselves. If this were their family, if they some day, 
and I hope they do not and I hope I do not, find themselves in this 
tragic situation, one of the most tragic we will ever experience in our 
lives, and they and their wife had come to a conclusion about what they 
want as a couple or individually as to how they end their life, how 
would they feel if elected officials they had never met who did not 
know them thought their judgment was superior to theirs? How would they 
feel if that affected them and their spouse?
  I have followed this case for years. My views tonight are the same as 
they have been always. This case is about Terri's will as interpreted 
by the courts, God's will, and it should not be about the will of the 
United States Congress. Sadly, regardless of what this Congress does 
tonight, everyone may lose. Terri's husband may lose his wife. Their 
parents may lose a daughter.
  My hearts and prayers go out to Terri and her family.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in America when a society as 
great as ours and filled with as many opportunities as ours turns its 
back on one of its most vulnerable disabled citizens. It is unfortunate 
that it has come to this.
  My colleague said a little bit ago or asked the question, ``Where 
will we stop if we allow this to go forward?'' I ask the same question 
of them: Where will we stop if we allow this to go forward? This is not 
an end of life decision.
  Those who have said that this issue should be a private and personal 
matter are correct. I agree with them. Congress has no business 
interjecting its opinion in the end-of-life decisions of any family.
  This is not what we are doing here. Terri Schiavo is not brain dead, 
she is not on artificial life support. She is not terminally ill or in 
the process of dying. She is brain damaged but if given the chance to 
be rehabilitated again, there is no telling what she can do.
  We are here precisely because we respect the rule of law. And my 
colleague read the 14th amendment to us before, and I will not do it 
again. Congress is merely saying to the Nation that we think a Federal 
court should look into this case and determine whether or not her 
constitutional right to life has been infringed upon. End-of-life 
decisions are excruciatingly difficult for any family to make. I know. 
My mother told us every week of her life that she did not want to be 
kept on life support. She had a stroke and she was on life support. The 
most difficult decision I ever made in my life, and my father's. But we 
consulted with the physicians, and we were able to get her to a point 
where she could live off of life support and leave it in the hands of 
God, and that is what we did.
  I know how difficult this decision is too. I do not know anyone here 
in this legislative body who wants to interject their opinion in any 
family's decision, but starving a woman to death when death is not 
imminent is wrong. Terri Schiavo deserves to have her constitutional 
rights respected.
  Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with Terri and her parents 
tonight.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we are turning a sad family tragedy into a 
grotesque legislative travesty. It is a tragedy. But what we are 
talking about tonight is nothing other than inserting our judgment for 
the courts. Today every day in every county in America, families, 
doctors, hospital chaplains are making life-and-death decisions, tough 
decisions and tender decisions. Each one has its own circumstance,

[[Page H1711]]

and Congress cannot reasonably understand each and should not be 
involved. For 215 years it has been a solid principle of this country 
that Congress is not involved in issues like this.
  Today in church at Palm Sunday services, I read the bulletin, and as 
is the usual practice there was a list of the sick and hospitalized, 
the homebound. I read each name. There are some family tragedies in 
that list and some tragedies yet to come. But those families would not 
want Congress to send them to one court or another for a review. This 
evening I had dinner with a family, my own relatives who yesterday and 
today had visited the hospital where the family decided to remove the 
feeding tube from a loved one. They came out of the hospital to find, 
to their dismay, that Congress is second guessing their decision. 
Imagine how they feel. Why should they believe that Congress will stay 
out of their personal affairs?
  By the way, why are we debating this case? I do not want to be too 
cynical, but could it be that the TV cameras are rolling?
  Doctors sometimes make the wrong decisions, Mr. Speaker. Families 
sometimes make the wrong decisions. But the wisdom of the founders of 
this government in not putting these decisions in the Congress is that 
they understood that most of the time we would make the wrong 
decisions. We do not know the facts of this case or thousands of others 
that are out there today despite assertions to the contrary tonight.
  That is why we should not, we should not, substitute our judgment for 
the courts. Congress should not play doctor, certainly not by long-
distance video or hearsay diagnosis, nor should we be the judiciary. If 
Congress wants to avoid tragedies like this, we should deal with policy 
questions, such as adequate home care for the 8 million Americans who 
need it and see that Medicare and Medicaid provide adequate long-term 
care. Yes, we should spend our time that way, and every Member of this 
body should spend the time tonight talking with their family members 
about advanced medical directives and living wills. That is something 
we can do to help prevent tragedies like this.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not make a decision on whether or not the 
feeding tube should be reinserted. It does not make a final decision on 
the issues that are being decided in Florida. What it does do is that 
it says that a Federal court, a judge, will review the Federal 
constitutional and legal rights that belong to Terri Schiavo, and that 
Federal judge will make a decision on Federal issues, and that is all 
the bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we meet tonight under extraordinary circumstances, and I 
for one am very grateful to the Speaker and majority leader Delay for 
bringing us back because a much-loved disabled woman in Florida has 
been ordered to die by starvation and dehydration. We meet tonight 
because Terri Schiavo's family, including her parents, Bob and Mary 
Schindler, refuse to allow their precious daughter, who is not in a 
coma nor is she terminally ill nor is she in a persistent vegetative 
state, to be killed by starving her to death.
  Disabled people deserve no less than everyone else deserves, to have 
their fundamental human rights protected and properly asserted. We meet 
here tonight because there are serious questions whether Terri 
Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael, who has abandoned Terri for 
another woman and has had two kids with the other woman, could be 
trusted as a legal guardian for a woman for whom he has sought death 
for many years.
  Let us not forget she has been in a hospice for 5 years. My mother 
was in a hospice. She had terminal brain cancer and was dying. One goes 
into a hospice when they are in the process of dying. Terri was not 
dying.
  Mention was made earlier by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) 
that everyone agrees that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. 
That's not true. Let me remind my colleagues that no less than 14 
independent medical professionals, including six neurologists, have 
said she is not in a persistent vegetative state.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues Dr. William Hammesfahr, an 
M.D., board certified neurologist from Clearwater, Florida has 
testified, and he has signed an affidavit as recently as March 6 of 
this year, and he has said Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent 
vegetative state. He goes on to point out that she could benefit, and I 
will include this full statement in the Record, from medical 
interventions that are available right now as we meet, she could be 
getting therapies, medical and otherwise, that would make her situation 
all that much better. All of that has been denied to her. She has sat 
in a hospice to languish denied these basic medical provisions and 
procedures that could enhance her life.
  I would hope that we would vote for this legislation.
  The material previously referred to is as follows:

               Declaration of William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.

       I, William M. Hammesfahr, M.D. have personal knowledge of 
     the facts states in this Declaration and, if called as a 
     witness, I could and would testify competently thereto under 
     oath.
       I declare as follows:
       1. I am a Board-certified neurologist in private practice 
     in Clearwater, Florida. My curriculum vitae is attached to 
     this declaration.
       2. I have previously filed affidavits and testified in the 
     matter involving Terri Schiavo.
       3. I have personally examined Terry Schiavo, reviewed her 
     available medical records, and reviewed her CT can. When I 
     last reviewed her CT scan I noted that Ms. Schiavo had 
     significant brain tissue. She has a large amount of viable 
     brain tissue in her cerebellum space and cerebral 
     hemispheres, not just scar tissue or spinal fluid.
       4. I have previously testified, and I am still of the 
     opinion, that Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative 
     state.
       5. Further, Ms. Schiavo had the ability to swallow. When I 
     examined her approximately two years ago, she was not PVS of 
     MCS, she was in an alert state, able to follow commands, able 
     to respond to language, and able to swallow.
       6. Her condition of hypoxic emcephalopathy is a type of 
     stroke. It is a condition I routinely treat with therapy, 
     sometimes 50 and 60 years, after the injury. She is only 15 
     years past the injury. We routinely see major improvements 
     within the first six months of treating such patients. Terri 
     Schiavo deserves to have the benefit of further treatment.
       7. There have been new advances in medical evaluation and 
     treatment for patients like Terri Schiavo even in just the 
     past few years. For example, in November of 2003. Judge Susan 
     Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health validated the 
     treament I have been providing victims of stroke by 
     identifying me, during her ruling, ``the first physician to 
     treat patients successfully to restore deficits caused by 
     stroke.'' With my therapy, there is improvement of blood flow 
     to the brain.
       8. There are other therapies that could benefit Terri 
     Schiavo, such as Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, and nutritional 
     therapy, that all have high success rates, and these should 
     be tried on Terri.
       9. As a patient, Terri Schiavo is not in that bad of a 
     condition to begin with. We treat many patients who are a lot 
     worse. There are a lot of therapies out there that will very 
     likely improve her condition, and they all compliment each 
     other, so if you do them all in a series, she could get a lot 
     better.
       10. Without a doubt, I observed Terri swallow. At a 
     previous hearing for Terri, all five physicians who examined 
     her agreed and testified that she can swallow. We know that 
     because the body makes approximately 2 liters of saliva and 
     post-nasal drainage a day and if she can swallow that, which 
     she can because she swallows her saliva, then she can swallow 
     food.
       11. I believe that it is wrong and medically unethical to 
     remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and derive her of food 
     and water. At the very least, further swallowing tests should 
     be done, and swallowing therapy used, so that Terri can feed 
     herself, without the use of the current feeding tube.
       I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of 
     the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct.
       Executed this 06 day of March 2005, in Clearwater, Florida.
                                       William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.
     Declarant.
                                  ____


              Declaration of William Maxfield, M.D., FACNM

       I, William Maxfield, M.D., FACNM, have personal knowledge 
     of the facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a 
     witness, I could and would testify competently thereto under 
     oath. I declare as follows:
       1. I am a medical doctor and licensed in Florida and 
     several other states.
       2. I have extensive experience in treatment of stroke, 
     multiple sclerosis, brain trauma, cerebral palsy, other 
     cognitive diseases and congenital problems such as ataxia-
     telangectasia as well as many other diseases that are treated 
     with Hyperbaric Oxygen

[[Page H1712]]

     Therapy (HBOT). My experience in imaging and hyperbaric 
     medicine provide a unique background for my work in 
     developing protocols to diagnose and treat conditions that 
     may benefit from hyperbaric oxygen therapy, such as the 
     current condition of Terri Schiavo.
       3. A copy of my 20-page curriculum vitae is attached to 
     this declaration.
       4. In May of 2002, I previously evaluated Terri Schiavo. I 
     reviewed supplied medical records, personally observed and 
     evaluated Ms. Schiavo on two separate days at the request of 
     attorney Pat Anderson, who was involved in the case at that 
     time.
       5. When I evaluated Ms. Schiavo I observed that she was 
     able to swallow at that time. She swallowed her saliva. She 
     didn't drool her saliva like a patient would if they could 
     not swallow.
       6. Based on my observation that Ms. Schiavo can swallow, I 
     believe that she deserves the opportunity to see if she could 
     sustain her life by swallowing food and water. I recommend 
     that she receive further swallowing testing, and the right to 
     sustain her life by eating and drinking on her own.
       7. During my personal observation of Ms. Schiavo, I saw her 
     respond to music and to her family by grimacing, moving and 
     smiling, and turning her head. She could not move her body 
     very much at that time, because of stiff joints, but she 
     turned her head toward her family and looked at them. She 
     would follow balloons around the room to a great degree. 
     These behaviors, in my opinion, are not consistent with a 
     Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), but are those of Minimally 
     Conscious State (MCS).
       8. There have been medical advances in the evaluation and 
     treatment of patients like Ms. Schiavo even in just the past 
     several years and since the last time that I examined her. 
     For example, these advances include further documentation of 
     the neurological response to HBOT and now the developing 
     field of Hypoxia Imagining. Having just a normal MRI or CAT 
     Scan is not enough for a patient like Ms. Schiavo. I would 
     recommend Ms. Schiavo have a SPECT brain scan before and 
     after HBOT. There is a data demonstrating an improved SPECT 
     brain scan after one or a few HBOT sessions can provide a 
     significant correlation as to response from a full course of 
     HBOT. We can then determine if there is improvement in the 
     pattern of her brain, and predict if additional hyperbaric 
     treatment would produce improvement. Ms. Schiavo deserves to 
     receive the benefit of this advance in medical evaluation and 
     treatment. I have worked with many patients who have shown 
     marked cognitive improvement with HBOT. Documentation is 
     available upon request.
       9. When I observed Ms. Schiavo, I noted that she did not 
     interact with me, but she did interact with her mother and 
     father. She does not respond to other strangers. She does 
     respond to people she knows and this is not something a 
     person in a PVS state would be able to do. I base this 
     opinion on my 30 years of practice in radiation therapy, and 
     as medical director for a hospice program, where I have dealt 
     with many patients who are in a PVS state.
       10. In my opinion Terri Schiavo is MCS, because if she was 
     PVS, she would not respond to the stimuli around her, 
     including the music. In my opinion, she is in a vegetative 
     state.
       11. Without out a doubt, Terri does respond and she does 
     swallow her own saliva. If she can do that, then, in my 
     opinion, she can swallow liquids.
       I declare under the penalty or perjury under the laws of 
     the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct.
       Executed this 6 day of March 2005, in Odessa, Florida.
                                     Wiliam Maxfield, M.D., PACNM,
                                                        Declarant.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous impassioned speech from a gentleman who 
legitimately and genuinely holds a very strong opinion here is exactly 
why we should not, as a Congress, be deciding this issue. He made a 
number of statements about her medical condition. None of us are in a 
position to know what her medical condition is. There are procedures in 
the State of Florida which have been gone through exhaustively to 
determine that. Doctors have testified one way or another. Doctors have 
examined her, some doctors have not examined her. That is precisely the 
point. The arguments the gentleman is making exemplify why this needs 
to be a case-by-case decision, not a legislative decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  It is precisely what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
has been saying all night. We want the venue to be a Federal district 
court in Florida to look at this critical matter from beginning to end 
to determine what has been missed. There is a benefit of the doubt here 
that goes to Terri. She ought to get it. We do not think she has gotten 
it. Let the court decide.
  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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the most traumatic moment of my life was when my mother 
died in my arms. She had chosen not to be dependent on a respirator in 
a hospital but to die at home with her family. These circumstances, or 
some variant of them, occur eventually within every family, and whether 
the Federal Government has the right to intervene in those private 
tragedies is the issue before us tonight.
  I talked to Terri Schiavo's brother today, and then finding what he 
said convincing, I read through all of Mr. Schiavo's testimony and 
interviews. And now I do not know who is right and who is wrong. But 
that is the point. Neither do my colleagues. But 10 courts have heard 
from all sides, from every relevant witness, and all of them, 19 
judges, many of them conservative Republicans, all have reached the 
same conclusion, that in fact Terri Schiavo's husband's wishes are 
consistent with his wife's, that the feeding tube should be removed.

                              {time}  2215

  I have never met, certainly not examined, Ms. Schiavo; but nor have 
any of the so-called medical experts in this body that have testified 
on the basis of edited videotapes ever examined her either. But every 
qualified doctor who has examined her has reached the same conclusion: 
she is in a perpetual vegetative state; she has no cerebral cortex.
  The reason this issue is before us, I think, is that it is all about 
religion and politics. But does not every religion teach, first of all, 
that no human being has the right to play God? And is not one of the 
very first principles of politics is that we should not use individual 
human tragedies, people suffering in anguish, political pawns to 
appease the interest groups that keep us in power.
  Mr. Speaker, the night that this was brought up last week, we also 
voted on a budget resolution, and we decided to cut tens of billions of 
dollars out of the program that enables the poorest and the sickest and 
the most dependent among us throughout this country to be able to live 
in a dignified, safe and sanitary nursing home. We decided to cut that 
money. I did not agree with cutting that money from Medicaid, but I do 
agree we have that right. We have the right to cut taxes for the 
wealthy, while we cut health care for the poor. But we have no 
legislative, constitutional authority to intervene in these very 
personal family matters, and most importantly, we have no moral right 
to be doing this tonight.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  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

[[Page 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, while I was at home this weekend, my 
little 2-year-old girl wanted me to take her for a walk. I looked 
forward to having some ``daddy time'' with her. But before we could 
leave, she fell asleep on our stairway. I picked her up, cradled her, 
and brought her to her bed.
  As I looked at her precious little face, I thought of Terri Schiavo's 
mother and father: how they must have cradled their little girl, loved 
her, watched her grow, given her hand in marriage.
  But, Mr. Speaker, as we are all now familiar, Terri's life met with 
terrible tragedy. A debilitating illness left her incapacitated, a 
medical system has not protected her, and a judicial system has 
betrayed her. And through this all, Terri's mother and father are still 
there with their little girl, loving her, caring for her, asking only 
for one simple thing: do not starve her to death. Give her food, give 
her water, ordinary care for a living person.
  Mr. Speaker, impoverished judicial reasoning has created the need for 
a new law, granting to Terri the same right given to Death Row inmates 
to appeal. Given the complexity of who should have final say over 
Terri's life, an estranged husband who is now in a common law marriage, 
or her loving parents, it is only reasonable that additional levels of 
appeal be given.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank our leadership for their exhaustive 
efforts on Terri's behalf, for their willingness to stand for a 
compassionate society that protects its most weak and vulnerable 
members.
  Mr. Speaker, let us join Terri's mother and father and cradle Terri 
in the arms of a just and good decision.
  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

[[Page 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in America we do not let people starve an 
animal to death. We do not let them starve prisoners to death. But that 
is what some would do to Terri Schiavo.
  This is about the rights of a disabled person. Terri Schiavo is not 
brain dead or comatose or unconscious. She is not terminally ill, she 
is not dying, she is not on artificial life support. All she needs is a 
feeding tube to eat. But so do many disabled people.
  Terri has a brain injury, but otherwise she is healthy. Seven years 
after the injury, her husband suddenly remembered Terri's wishes about 
life and death. Her estranged husband has not allowed her any therapy 
or treatments or rehabilitation in more than a decade since he won the 
malpractice award, even though many doctors believe that they would 
help her condition. In fact, she was speaking some words before her 
treatment stopped. She may not even need the help of a feeding tube if 
given therapy. Doctors who have seen her certify that she can swallow.
  Mr. Speaker, this woman needs help, not a death sentence. She needs 
the warmth of a family that cares for her. She needs the help of 
doctors who want to treat her, instead of recommending that she die. 
But her family is not even allowed to help her because of a judge's 
ruling, a judge who in 5 years has not even bothered to visit her once 
to see for himself that Terri is not comatose, that she is not 
unconscious, that she is not in a vegetative state.
  If prisoners on Death Row are guaranteed Federal review of their 
cases, Terri Schiavo deserves at least as much consideration. The 14th 
amendment of the Constitution says: ``No State shall deprive any person 
of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' This means 
Florida may not starve Terri to death unless every legal recourse to 
prevent it has been taken.
  This is a constitutional right. Terri's life is valuable. She 
deserves a right to live. The disability community is horrified at what 
is happening to Terri, and so are millions of Americans. I urge every 
one of my colleagues to have compassion on this disabled woman and 
allow a Federal court to review the facts and her constitutional 
rights.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ 
minutes to deal with two arguments that have been presented here as 
precedents.
  This is an unprecedented piece of individual case decision. One, we 
are told, well, we did this previously with civil rights. After years 
of determining and establishing that there was a discriminatory 
pattern, we made an exception. The rule remains that States decide 
these kinds of decisions; but because there was an overwhelming showing 
of a pattern of discrimination based on race, outlawed specifically by 
an amendment to the Constitution, we made an exception. There is no 
showing here of any such pattern of discrimination.
  Secondly, we are told this is just a general principle like habeas 
corpus. I have to ask people on the side who are pushing this, if this 
is such a good idea, why is it limited to this case and why do you say 
it is not to be a precedent? If, in fact, it is to be the rule that 
people should have this appeal, why do you limit it to only one 
individual?
  That suggests that this is a response to a particular dispute. You 
are responding to a particular dispute because it did not come out 
ideologically and for whatever reason you say you wanted. But if it is 
a principle, why is it written as a bill applying only to these 
individuals, and it specifically says it cannot be a precedent?
  Clearly, this is an individualized response to a controversy that 
attracted attention, and if you believed in the principle, you would 
have made it uniform.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is Sunday evening, a time when those of 
us in the House of Representatives are usually not in session. But 
tonight is an unusual night and the circumstances before us are 
unusual.

                              {time}  2230

  It goes without saying that we of course are discussing the life and 
death of Terri Schiavo. The situation that Terri is in has been 
discussed here on this floor tonight already, and you only have to turn 
on the news or pick up a newspaper to learn about it. However, as I 
have watched, as I have listened, as I have read the news, I have been 
shocked at some of the inaccurate statements that have been made about 
Terri's condition.
  The bottom line is that once Terri is dead, it will be too late to 
reconsider what else we will do. The truth is Terri is not brain dead. 
She is awake. She is aware of her surroundings. Terri is not on 
artificial life support. No extraordinary measures are being taken. She 
does need assistance in being fed, but that is not unusual. I have a 
perfectly healthy 1-year-old little boy, and he needs assistance in 
being fed, perhaps not through a feeding tube, but nonetheless he needs 
help.
  As I said, this is an unusual situation. Usually Congress writes laws 
with a broad brush, but every once in a while an unusual situation will 
require special legislative action. That is a situation for us tonight, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Tonight, the possible life or death of Terri Schiavo is before us. I 
ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and may we as a Nation 
continue to protect the most innocent and most vulnerable among us so 
that the United States of America will continue to be that light on the 
hill, that beacon of hope for all mankind.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, we are considering today what is the 
life of Terri Schiavo, and it is not just about who we are as 
Americans. It is about a lifestyle. It gives us the opportunity to 
affirm constitutional protections apply to all Americans, particularly 
the most vulnerable among us.
  As a disabled person, Terri Schiavo deserves the same right as any 
American, and for Terri time is quickly running out. I believe it is 
extremely important that Congress step in to protect the life of Terri 
before it is too late.
  In looking at the evidence in this case, I believe the courts have 
acted irresponsibly. Terri Schiavo does not need the assistance of any 
machine to keep her alive. She is responsive to the sound, touch, and 
sight of those caring for her. She has parents and siblings who 
desperately want to take care of her. Yet the courts have even denied 
the ability of the relatives to offer food and water to her lips. In 
fact, Noble Prize Nominee Dr. William Hammesfahr recently issued a 
statement saying he has examined Terri and he believes her injury is 
the type of stroke that he treats every day with success. In fact, he 
said there are many approaches that would help Terri. I know because I 
have had the opportunity to personally examine her and her medical 
record and her x-rays.
  It is time to help Terri instead of just warehousing her. She would 
have benefited from treatment years ago, but it is not too late now. 
Terri's parents along with her brother and sister have begged her 
husband, Michael, to let them take care of Terri. He has not only 
refused this request, he has denied Terri the rehabilitative care they 
might have offered her to help with her condition. Now he has had her 
feeding tube removed and sentenced her to a most excruciating death, 
citing Terri's own wishes as the rationale.
  Yet Terri did not express this to her parents or siblings or reduce 
her wishes on paper, and Michael did not remember the supposed request 
until years after Terri's initial injuries when a cash settlement was 
awarded to her, a settlement he would stand to inherit.
  If we as a Congress allow this to happen without guaranteeing her 
14th amendment rights to due process, Terri's blood is on our hands. If 
we do not act now, our inaction is completely irreversible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

[[Page H1715]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), someone who knows something about 
Federal intervention when it is called for.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we here tonight? We have not been ordained or 
called by some all-powerful force to play God or play doctor.
  Every day American families make life-and-death decisions governed by 
their own faith and led by their own hearts. This Congress does not 
interfere with most personal decisions of these American citizens. Why 
then, Mr. Speaker, why have we come here tonight?
  Where is the respect for individual responsibility that is waved like 
a banner in this Chamber? Where is the respect tonight for States' 
rights that we said we hold so dear? If we really believe in those 
values, we will stay out of Terri Schiavo's life today and let the 
decision of her husband and the ruling of the Federal court stand.
  Leadership must lead. Tonight this leadership is a taillight. It is 
not the headlight for democracy and for a citizen's right to privacy 
that it should be.
  This is demagoguery. This is a step in where we have no business. 
This is walking where the angels fear to tread. We are playing with a 
young woman's life for the sake of politics. This is not about values. 
This is not about religion. It is pandering for political gain with the 
next election in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, how much further can we slide down this slippery slope 
of hypocrisy? How much lower can we sink? How much more unprincipled 
can we be?
  In a democracy, sometimes we disagree with individual decisions. 
Sometimes it is hard to bear judgment that we do not understand. But if 
we truly believe in individual freedom and the right to privacy, then 
we must get out of the way and let people be free.
  This is a matter that should rest with the family, their consciences, 
and their God. The Florida courts have spoken, and we should not 
intervene.
  This is a very, very sad night for the House of Representatives. Mr. 
Speaker, is it possible for us to let this young woman take her leave 
in peace?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we all know that there are deep emotions 
that are involved in this debate tonight. And earlier many of us met 
with Terri Schiavo's brother, and I do not think that anyone can truly 
convey what that family is going through. And as a mother, a tragedy of 
this type is my worst nightmare.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we, this Congress, we are not here simply because 
we believe in our hearts that a great mistake is about to be made. We 
are here because all of us, each and every one of us, Americans, 
Members of Congress, we all know and we understand that the most basic, 
most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, that is the 
right to life. And it is our responsibility to protect that right.
  Now, I interpret and a lot of people have looked at the decision by 
the Florida judiciary and they interpret this as something that says 
our society, our country should be willing to accept and facilitate the 
murder of an adult human being, a human being who has not committed any 
crime at all whatsoever.
  I do not think the Founders of our country or our Constitution would 
agree with that decision, Mr. Speaker.
  I think it is entirely appropriate that the Federal courts consider 
this matter, a matter that so clearly speaks to the core of our belief, 
the belief that every human being has worth, every human being has a 
value, and every human being has a right to live.
  Our hearts are with Terri Schiavo and her family. Our reason and our 
intellect are with the Constitution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  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

[[Page H1716]]

cortex that makes us who we are and that cortex dies when it is 
deprived of oxygen and we effectively die with it.

                              {time}  2245

  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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsors of the Weldon legislation. I respect 
his opinion as a Floridian and as a doctor, but I am also a cosponsor 
of the Sensenbrenner legislation, as I respect his lead and opinion as 
a jurist, a lawyer, and as someone who knows the 14th amendment. And I 
do believe there is a question about the 14th amendment, due process, 
being followed or not.
  Here is what we do know. Terri is not a PVS, someone in a permanent 
vegetative state. Florida has a legal definition of this and it states 
that one has to be permanent or irreversibly unconscious, with no 
voluntary or cognitive behavior of any kind, and without ability to 
communicate. Terri is able to laugh, she is able to cry, and she, 
apparently, can hear. She responds to stimuli, such as voices, touch, 
and people.
  Six neurologists and eight medical professionals have testified that 
she is not PVS, even though her husband has discontinued valuable 
therapy now for nearly 10 years. Terri is not terminally ill. She is 
not in the process of dying. She is not on a respirator, she is not on 
dialysis, she is not on a pacemaker or any other 24-hour medical 
equipment. She is not in a coma. And although parts of her brain are 
permanently damaged, she is not brain dead.
  Removing the feeding tube simply kills her by starvation and 
dehydration. Terri did not have a living will. Even though her husband 
has now stated that she would have wanted to die, he withheld this 
information for 9 years and never came forth with it until the State 
law in Florida said they would now allow hearsay evidence for living 
wills. But up until then, there was nothing from her husband.
  After the heart attack and chemical reaction in 1990, she was taking 
therapy. And, in fact, she was able to speak and communicate to some 
degree until 1993, when he discontinued the therapy. Mr. Speaker, if 
there is a split decision, we should go with the 14th amendment and the 
desire of the parents.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of charges talked about tonight 
and a lot of emotion. This is a painful process. As a physician, I have 
dealt with end-of-life decisions in families as they struggle countless 
times. Why is this one different? First and foremost, there is no 
living will in place; and, second, there is a fundamental disagreement 
between Terri's husband and her parents, two who normally would agree. 
There is also a disagreement among medical experts.
  Now, where do we make disagreements when there are disagreements with 
irreversible life-changing decisions? A court of law. What court? 
Depends on the case. Does Congress have the authority? Absolutely. 
Article I, Section 8 and Article III, section 1 give Congress the 
authority to determine the jurisdiction of Federal courts, and that is 
what we are doing here tonight.
  Ideally, decisions are made among families. When loved ones disagree, 
our society strongly, strongly believes in individual rights and that 
they must be preserved. That is why all State death penalty cases get a 
final review in Federal court, and that is all that is being asked 
here.
  As I sat in church this morning, I struggled with this and I prayed. 
I prayed for a lowering of the rhetoric. I prayed for a decrease in the 
emotion. This is not a clear-cut case. This is an extremely difficult 
case, and I ask my colleagues for caution. It is right and just that we 
have a final set of eyes, objective, nascent and responsible eyes, 
review the case and provide that final cautious review. It is our 
responsibility to ensure that right.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  It is true that the Constitution gives Congress the right to provide 
the jurisdiction of the courts. This bill does that for one individual, 
which, as the gentleman from Georgia's comments make clear, it is based 
on the facts of the one case.
  This is not an act of legislation, this is a case-by-case 
adjudication because Members here genuinely dislike the outcome of the 
Florida court system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a dangerously reckless way to deal with one 
of the most serious issues we will ever confront. There is no way to 
make these judgments easy, even when the express desires of the 
patients are clear and unambiguous. Where there is disagreement on the 
medical facts or on the wishes of the patient, these cases can be 
heartrending and sometimes bitter, beyond the comprehension of those 
who have been fortunate not to have to make these decisions.
  So what does this bill do? This bill would place a Federal judge in 
the middle of this case after the State courts have adjudicated it, 
after doctors and family members and counsel and clergy and the courts 
in Florida have struggled with it for years. After everything is over, 
after all the facts have been established to the satisfaction of the 
courts, all the appeals exhausted, the writ of certiary denied by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, now we start all over again.
  My colleagues wish to put one of those unelected Federal judges they 
always denounce right in the middle of this and say the trial starts de 
novo. Ignore everything the Florida courts have done. This expresses 
contempt for the Florida courts, contempt for the Florida legislature. 
Nothing is to be considered res judicata. No facts are to be considered 
established.
  This is not establishing a Federal appeal from the Florida courts on 
the grounds that the Florida courts have violated some constitutional 
rights we are familiar with; those kinds of procedures. No, this does 
not do that. This simply says the Florida courts are incompetent. The 
Florida legislature is incompetent. The Florida people are not to be 
trusted in electing their judges and their legislators.
  Instead, we are going to put this case, and only this case, in the 
Federal courts from the very beginning and we instruct the Federal 
courts to ignore the evidence in the Florida courts; to ignore the 
procedures in the Florida courts; to ignore the testimony in the 
Florida courts and to start all over, because we have contempt, because 
we do not like the judgments of the Florida courts.
  We have never, ever done such a thing in the history of this country, 
and we should not start now. The Constitution of the United States says 
there should be no ex poste facto law because it is fundamentally 
unfair. This is not ex poste facto, it is not a criminal court, but it 
is the same kind of legislation. It is a bill of attainder, in effect. 
There is a reason why the

[[Page H1717]]

Constitution prohibits bills of attainder and ex post fact laws, and 
although this is not technically an ex poste facto law or a bill of 
attainder, it violates all those reasons, and we should respect the 
spirit of the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an uncontradicted fact, uncontradicted except for 
the speculations of some orators in this Chamber, that Terri Schiavo 
told her husband, told her sister-in-law, told her brother-in-law, told 
various of her friends when attending funerals of close family members 
who had been on life support, that she would ``not want to live like 
that.'' The Florida court found that to be the case, to be the fact. 
The guardian ad litem appointed by the court, in his report to the 
court, found that.
  This is not the case of a perhaps self-interested, conflict of 
interested husband testifying to that. It is the case of the husband 
saying that she told him that, the friends, the brothers-in-law, the 
sisters-in-law. They all said the same thing. And the court found that, 
as a matter of fact, that is what Terri Schiavo said that was her wish.
  The doctors' testimony. The doctors testified, doctors who examined 
her, not doctors standing up on the floor here who say, well, from the 
video tape we can infer. Doctors can be deprived of their license for 
making diagnoses from afar. But doctors who have actually examined this 
patient have testified her cerebral cortex is liquefied; that it is 
destroyed. Without a cerebral cortex there is no sensations, there is 
no consciousness, there is no feeling, there is no pain, there is no 
possibility of recovery.
  That is what a persistent vegetative state is. There is no 
possibility of recovery, despite the wishes, despite the fervent hopes, 
despite the illusions of desperate relatives. We should not feed those 
illusions.
  And what has happened to family values that we talk about here? This 
bill would invade the sanctity of the family, would invade the decision 
of the husband. George Will, a noted conservative comentator and 
philosopher, conservative enough so that he famously helped coach 
Ronald Reagan for his debates in the Presidential debates in 1980, said 
on television this morning, and I quote, ``Unless we are prepared to 
overturn centuries of common law and more than two centuries of 
constitutional law that says that husband and wife are one, therefore 
clearly this is a decision to be made by the husband.''
  Now, this is not just a decision made by the husband. This is a 
decision made by Terri Schiavo, according to the testimony of the 
husband and the brothers-in-law and the sisters-in-law. This is a 
decision made by the husband and Terri Schiavo, according to all the 
testimony. So we have no respect for the carefully established 
procedures our States have set up to wrestle with these difficult 
cases; no respect for the elected representatives of the Florida State 
legislature or their judges.
  Who are we to say they are wrong? Who are we to say Terri Schiavo and 
her husband are wrong? Who are we to say that Terri Schiavo's husband 
is self-interested? And who are we to say this is any different from 
the thousands of cases of do-not-resuscitate orders that are given 
effect in our courts and in our hospitals every day, other than the 
fact that this case has gotten a lot of publicity and a lot of public 
official intervention? This is hypocrisy at its greatest, and we ought 
not to pass this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled, listening to my friend from 
New York. At 151 Congressional Record, page H1599, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) said, ``If a person thinks a court in a State is 
depriving someone of civil rights, they can go into Federal Court.'' 
And at volume 150 Congressional Record at page H6580, the gentleman 
from New York noted that without Federal courts, ``Obviously, the 
progress we have witnessed in the area of civil rights would have been, 
at the very least, stymied, and most likely prevented altogether.''
  Now, all this bill does is to allow the parents of Terri Schiavo to 
go into Federal Court to adjudicate her Federal constitutional and 
legal rights. No more, no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I shall not try to influence 
the opinion of anyone on this issue. I will simply share with you my 
opinion, the opinion of a physician of almost 41 years duration.
  I am a head and neck surgeon. I have done cancer surgery almost all 
of those years. I have done much maxillofacial trauma all of those 
years and dealt with situations like this on numerous occasions.
  Terri Schiavo has spontaneous respiratory activities and 
respontaneous cardiac activity. She is not on life support, as we 
routinely define it. She is not intubated and she is not on a 
respirator.
  And I give the gentleman from the State of Washington credit for his 
knowledge of the physiology of the brain stem. He is right, it is very 
robust, and that certainly is one of the things that is driving her 
now. But she does have some cognition and some cortical activity.

                              {time}  2300

  Removing her gastrostomy tube will ultimately cause her demise, a 
commissive act that will cause the death of a human being.
  How many others in this country are now in long-term care facilities 
with feeding tubes, but able to breathe on their own, their hearts 
beating strongly? Should their feeding tubes be removed as well? I 
think not.
  I believe it is wrong to remove a feeding tube from an individual 
whose cardiopulmonary function is stable and who has some remaining 
cognitive abilities. It is unfortunate in many ways that this venue is 
where this issue will be decided, but removal of this feeding tube 
under these very public circumstances is a slippery slope down which we 
and the United States should not tread.
  This bill deserves our support.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work.
  Mr. Speaker, there are doctors in this Chamber, there are lawyers in 
this Chamber, there are judges in this Chamber. I am none of those, but 
I am an elected Member of Congress. I am also a mother. Tonight in this 
gallery my daughter sits. I think of my daughter, I think of my other 
three children, and I think of the day they were born. I think of the 
milestones in their lives and the love that I have for them. I think of 
the lengths that I would go to protect my children as adults even if 
they had an injury. I think of the lengths that I would go to, to care 
for my children. I would die for my children. I would do anything for 
them.
  My heart is raw when I hear the things about Terri Schiavo and her 
mother and her father and her siblings, because I just lost my brother 
in November. I think of how my life changed in an instant and all the 
lives of those who cared for him. We talk about a family decision. What 
about Terri's mom and dad? What about her siblings? What about the 
people who cared for her and nurtured her as she was growing up? Do you 
not think they know what Terri wants?
  When we talk about a permanent vegetative state, I am offended by 
that. Terri smiles and acknowledges the people that love her when they 
come to see her. She cries when they leave. How heartless are we to 
call somebody like Terri Schiavo a vegetable? What are we thinking?
  When we think about this case, we need to think about the message 
that we are sending to our children and our grandchildren. What we do 
in this Chamber tonight is as important as anything we have done in 
defending our Nation, in doing the things that we do as Members of 
Congress. When we react to the Terri Schiavo case, when we think about 
this legislation tonight, we need to think about the future and the 
message we are sending to our children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I did indeed say that there can be Federal 
court review of due process, obviously.

[[Page H1718]]

That has happened here. And the Federal court said, ``Not only has Ms. 
Schiavo's case been given due process in State court, but few if any 
similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of 
process.''
  The difference in this bill is not that it is a review of State 
court, but it orders a de novo proceeding to ignore everything that 
happened in State court as if the State courts did not exist. That is 
unprecedented, that is contemptuous, that is different; and that should 
not be done.
  She got the appellate review already. The appellate courts and 
Federal court did not agree with the distinguished chairman. That is 
not an indication for a new bill.
  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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1963, 
Theresa Marie Schindler was born in Pennsylvania. At the time, I was 
pregnant with my first child and my beautiful daughter, Danene, was 
born 5 days later on December 8. She is my best friend and today she, 
too, is a mom.
  I certainly can relate to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler's love for their 
daughter and

[[Page H1719]]

their passionate fight to keep her alive. Mothers have a precious bond 
with their daughters. The issues that we are discussing tonight are not 
because those who may speak on one side or the other are right or wrong 
or pro-life or pro-choice. The issue here is what Terri would have 
wanted. It is not what we would want for ourselves or even our loved 
ones. We should not be second-guessing a patient's wishes. That is not 
what we were elected to Congress to do, nor do I believe that our 
forefathers would have ever wanted us to be involved. Terri Schiavo's 
constitutional right to make the decision she felt comfortable with is 
being usurped by her parents and now this Congress by means of this 
private bill.
  Jay Wolfson was appointed guardian ad litem for Theresa Marie 
Schiavo. I know Jay Wolfson and often called upon him when I was a 
State senator chairing the health care committee, because I knew that 
he could always give me an impartial review of controversial matters 
relating to health care. Jay Wolfson's report to Governor Bush and the 
Sixth Judicial Circuit dated December 1, 2003, reviewed the court 
testimony and statements made by all family members. It is important to 
know that the Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had 
told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they 
would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult time, these same 
family members acknowledged that Terri was in an irreversible, 
persistent vegetative state.
  Today, I burned up the phone calling health care professionals that I 
know back in Florida. These are people who make life-and-death 
decisions and realize that the 5-year-old video we see on TV of the eye 
blinking and apparent movements are an involuntary reflexive action 
known as part of the autonomic nervous system.

                              {time}  2315

  Almost everybody in the health care profession that I spoke to are 
avid pro-life people, but they know the sad facts. Their comments were 
almost to a person, something to the effect of 15 years of being in a 
persistent vegetative state is far too long to suffer. To second guess 
the Florida legislature, Florida courts, and Terri's choice is just 
plain wrong. We should not be engaged in second guessing many 
neurologists and on-site health care profession always who have seen 
the patient, performed tests, and attested to the courts that Terri is 
not going to recover.
  This is a very difficult decision that I know does not come easily 
for any Member of this body. It is gut wrenching and reaches deep into 
our hearts. My daughter, who was born 5 days after Terri Schiavo, is a 
health care professional, who, when I asked if she would want me to 
battle to keep a feeding tube in if she had not signed a living will, 
said to me, and I want the Members to bear in mind that she is a health 
care professional who deals day in and day out with patients with 
feeding tubes, but the difference is that they are not in a vegetative 
state, her response to me was sufficient to help me make up my mind. 
She said to me, No, Mom. If you really loved me, you would want me to 
have rest and meet the Lord.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill tonight with 
a heavy heart, as is everybody in this Chamber.
  I would, though, like to address an important issue that we have not 
talked much about, and that is the conflict of interest that I believe 
her husband has with respect to his decisions that are supposedly in 
her best interest. I have spent a professional career as a CPA working 
under a code of conduct that requires me to function without conflicts 
of interest. I have to disqualify myself as an auditor if I have got a 
conflict of interest that is in appearance or in fact. This body has 
heard much about the importance of conflicts of interest, whether in 
the Sarbanes-Oxley bill that talks about the relationship of auditors 
and their clients, or campaign finance laws where it talks about the 
impact that money has on these conflicts of interest.
  Terri's husband has, in my mind, a significant and apparent conflict 
of interest in this matter. Her husband is her guardian, and he is duty 
bound, in my mind, to make decisions that are in Terri's best interest.
  Even the most casual observer would conclude that he is conflicted. 
He lives with another woman. He has fathered two children with this 
other woman. This is a conflict of interest between what is in his 
personal best interest and his wife and children's best interests and 
those of Terri's.
  We have heard much about Terri's condition tonight, but what we have 
not heard, though, is much evidence of her current condition, evidence 
such as tests and MRIs and brain scans and swallowing tests that we 
could objectively evaluate her condition through these tests. Her 
husband has categorically prevented this from happening throughout the 
last 7 years. I do not believe the issue of Terri's husband's conflict 
of interest and its impact on her condition have been given a proper 
review. I have heard her brother tell us this evening about the lack of 
care that has been insisted upon by her husband throughout the last 7 
years, simple tests, trips outside into the sunshine.
  I support this bill that would allow a review of Terri's case, 
including the role of her husband's decision and his conflicts of 
interest.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to Terri Schiavo, her 
parents, and family, and, yes, even to her husband. My heart goes out 
to everyone who may have found themselves in a similar situation in the 
past or might find themselves in a similar situation in the future.
  I wanted to stay back in Connecticut and avoid having to cast a vote 
because I do not want to play God, and either way I vote I feel I am. 
We all know this is a time for real thoughtfulness and wisdom and 
inspiration, and I believe that is what we are all trying to do. On 
both sides of the aisle we ask ``Let the words of my mouth and the 
meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my Strength 
and my Redeemer.''
  Sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, sanctity of an individual to 
decide for themselves what should happen to their own life, I find 
myself wondering why is there so much focus on this life when we ignore 
the countless lives throughout the world who die minute by minute, hour 
by hour, day by day from hunger and disease that this Congress could 
address and this Congress could prevent? Why only Terri when there are 
others like her in our country?
  The only way this bill has any legitimacy is if it applies to all 
cases, not just Terri's, and that is what concerns me. How deep is this 
Congress going to reach? How deep is this Congress going to reach into 
the personal lives of each and every one of us?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I also want to thank the Speaker for the difficult decision to call 
the Members back, though the difficult decision maybe was made less 
difficult by the circumstances. The hard work of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) over the last few days; of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader; the work of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who may not be on the same side as I am when we 
take the vote tonight, but who has certainly worked hard to see what we 
could do to make this work in the best possible way for the Members, 
who were called back.
  Terri Schiavo is in a terrible situation tonight. She has been in a 
terrible situation for a long time, a situation none of us would want 
to be in, a situation we would not want our loved ones in, a situation 
we would not have to decide about, but when this happens we do have to 
decide. And there is clearly a conflict between members of Terri's 
family about what she would want to happen.
  Someone observed earlier that when one is her age they probably have 
not written that down yet, and of course that is right. When one is my 
age they

[[Page H1720]]

probably should have written that down, and sometime in the next few 
days I am going to check to see what I wrote 10 years ago and if I 
still agree with what I wrote 10 years ago, as I suspect many of us 
will. But she had not written it down.
  Some people seem to think she would feel much differently about this 
than others. And what this legislation would do is let a judge come in 
and look at all the facts one more time and determine if what is 
happening should continue to happen.
  I know others have said there is no real difference in just giving 
someone food and water and putting someone on incredible life support 
systems. I see a difference. I think most Americans see a difference. 
We will see if a judge sees a difference, if in fact we are able to 
give a judge that opportunity.
  We are not deciding tonight anything that a family should be 
deciding. We are asking a judge to come in and decide what a family 
among themselves could not decide. I have heard other people here talk 
about family members getting together and making this tough decision. 
But nobody has talked about family members getting together and 
fighting over that decision and what they would want to happen if that 
fight happened in their family.
  The vote tonight will be a bipartisan vote. This is not about 
Democrats or Republicans. I hope this is not about politics. I hope 
this is about Terri Schiavo. This bill also has a study that would 
require us to look at other circumstances and see if we should have the 
broader legislation that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and 
others, Democrats and Republicans, introduced last week.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that this legislation pass, that we get this done 
as quickly as possible.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  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?

                              {time}  2330

  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

[[Page 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. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, you have heard all the legal arguments, all 
the moral arguments. We see these things differently, and I understand 
that. I am here to speak for myself.
  I have a living will that I wrote years ago, and I will check it 
myself as many Americans will. The bottom line is, I do not want you 
interfering with my wife and me. Leave us alone. Let us make our own 
decisions. It is not up to you. That has always been the way it has 
been in this country, and that is the way it should be.
  For 6 years I have been hearing how the nuclear family is all we care 
about. Now we do not. Stay out of my family. If you can do it here, you 
can do it to me. You can do it to every one of my constituents.
  Leave us alone. Let my nuclear family make my decisions and my wife's 
decisions without your input.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to just speak about the issue of 
being here in the first place. When I was home for a couple of days, 
several friends asked questions about this case. My mother even called 
to inquire.
  Like the gentlewoman from Colorado, I am just an earnest layman, not 
a lawyer or a physician, even though I have been very impressed from 
both sides with the input from the distinguished lawyers and physicians 
that are in these Chambers, and I think we should come often now as 
technology develops exponentially and just ask questions of ourselves 
about medical ethics and where we really are.
  I reject the notion that this is about politics. I do know something 
about politics, and I would say this is not good politics for either 
side. This is about life and death.
  I do believe that this is somewhat about ideology, though. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts said so, and I believe there is a culture 
of life that many conservatives are willing to stand for.
  I frankly think that many liberals for a long time used every tool at 
their disposal to push their perspective, and I am glad conservatives 
are finally figuring out that that needs to be done from time to time. 
I think this is a thoughtful process; I think it is a necessary 
process. I think the Federal representatives, when we face these 
issues, should not hide or shirk the responsibility. We should come 
here.
  Now, I am concerned about the separation of powers and the tenth 
amendment, and I have a record for a decade of standing on almost a 
libertarian platform on some of these issues. But I do not think we are 
going too far here. This is a review. It is simply a review. It is a 
reasonable step.
  To the gentleman from Massachusetts, you have a living will. To the 
whole country, if you do not want your family in this dilemma, and you 
should not, get a living will, so that it is clear, so it is not 
questioned, so that you will not have a case come to the floor of the 
House with you. The lesson here is everyone in this country should have 
a living will, so it is cut and dried, so we know, and the legislative 
bodies in Florida or Montana or Washington, D.C. will not have to be 
involved.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago or so I worked with colleagues 
in the Senate on the difficult issues relating to the wishes of people 
who were going to receive medical care if they were incapacitated. We 
required that State laws be told to patients about living wills and 
advance directives.
  The Florida judicial system has worked hard to follow its laws and to 
try to discern what was or would have been the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo. 
Section 1 of the bill says: ``The U.S. 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 Mrs. Schiavo for 
the alleged violation of any of her rights under the Constitution or 
Federal laws.''
  That court has already addressed that issue, it did so just a few 
days ago, and here is what it decided: ``The court finds there is not a 
substantial likelihood the petitioners will prevail on their Federal 
constitutional claim.'' That is the same court to whom you are sending 
this case. And the Supreme Court of our country denied review.
  So essentially what you are doing now for one case is changing the 
Federal rules, for one case, and saying there shall be a de novo 
hearing, disregarding everything that has happened through the State 
courts and Federal courts until now. In a word, what you are doing is 
allowing the rule of law of this country to be twisted in the winds. It 
is a mistake.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are taking on one of the great 
moral issues of our day, our basic sanctity of life, our right to life; 
and what you hear tonight is a lot of emotion.
  We have all had experiences with situations similar to this, or we 
know those that have dealt with these tough issues. We know family 
members that have dealt with these tough issues of end-of-life 
decisions. And tonight we as a body are wrestling with this issue. Just 
like America is, we are wrestling with this great issue.
  But I submit to you, tonight, we are not talking simply about Terri 
Schiavo. We are not talking simply about Terri Schiavo's family. We are 
talking about a greater issue: How shall we be judged as a civil 
society? And I submit to you that we will be judged by how we treat the 
least

[[Page H1722]]

among us, those that may not defend themselves, the young, the mentally 
disabled, the physically disabled.
  How shall we be judged as a civil society? What kind of government 
shall we have? As a Federal Government, I believe we have an obligation 
to step forward and say that we shall protect life. Even when it is 
tough, we shall protect life, and a woman's right to live. And tonight, 
Mr. Speaker, there is a woman in Florida that is being starved, and we 
are acting tonight to preserve her right to live and give her the 
opportunity of a tomorrow.
  I say to you, tonight, Mr. Speaker, this is not about Terri Schiavo; 
it is about every one of us in this room. It is about millions of 
Americans across this Nation. We are all potentially Terri Schiavos.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the 
details of this case. I just want to say a word about the process, 
because we should honor and respect the rule of law, and laws should be 
applied equally to all.
  This is a special bill, special treatment to just one case. This bill 
does not grant a Federal right of review to cases like this. This bill 
applies just to this one case.

                              {time}  2345

  The majority in Congress apparently has already decided the proper 
outcome of the case, a decision different from the next of kin and 
State court judges who have heard evidence from both sides.
  Present law has a process to ascertain whether or not a patient is in 
a persistent vegetative state, and it should not matter what 
politicians think. There is a process. But this case will be given 
special treatment because Members of Congress have made a different 
diagnosis. Present law also places the decisions in the hands of the 
next of kin, the husband. But Congress apparently does not agree with 
the next of kin; and this bill, therefore, gives special legal standing 
to other relatives.
  This is not the only recent example of special treatment. A few years 
ago, a child custody case in the Washington, D.C. area was decided by 
special legislative language in a transportation appropriations bill. 
The Committee on Education and the Workforce considering a case on 
appeal between the Department of Labor and a bank retroactively changed 
the law to fix the result on behalf of the bank. The House passed 
legislation to fix a result in firearms liability legislation so that 
the National Rifle Association got to try the issue in the legislative 
branch after they had made contributions to legislators who will decide 
the result, rather than being relegated to the impartial judge and jury 
where ordinary citizens have to try their cases.
  Mr. Speaker, we should honor the rule of law and apply that law in 
all cases. There are cases like this all over the country, but this 
bill applies only to this case because the relatives were able to get 
the attention of the United States Congress.
  If Congress wants to establish a Federal right of review in cases 
like this, a new rule of law, so be it; but that law should apply to 
all whether or not they have a Member of Congress to introduce a 
special bill. Let us honor and respect the rule of law to be applied 
equally to all and reject this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, since I was a child and to 
this very day on the floor of the House I have been guided by a 
fundamental principle that we as men and women, indeed, we as a society 
will be judged according to how we treat the most vulnerable amongst 
us. That is the issue we face today. I believe Terri Schiavo's case 
must be judged in that context.
  For me the following points are the most important: Terri left no 
living will or written instructions; Terri's mom and dad, the people 
that have loved her the longest and have fought so valiantly for her, 
want responsibility for their daughter. I spoke with her brother who 
wants his parents to be able to protect his sister.
  Terri's life has value and worth, and we must do everything we can to 
protect her rights and those of other disabled people here in America. 
The law ought not to provide, should not provide, more protection for 
murderers guilty of terrible crimes than for an innocent woman lying in 
a Florida hospital bed. So today we must act on behalf of Terri 
Schiavo. Congress must act on behalf of all of those who cannot speak 
for themselves and defend themselves.
  Americans believe in a culture of life, not a culture that tells the 
weak and vulnerable there is no place for them at the table. There must 
be a place for them at our table. We make progress towards that culture 
of life, one life at a time, one heart at a time. Today let us start by 
helping Terri Schiavo live.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I just came in on the plane from North 
Carolina, and I found myself thinking a lot about what we are doing 
here this evening. Wondering, first of all, what this vote is going to 
cost the American people, making a mental calculation that probably 4, 
$5 million we are spending on this one vote this evening, and wondering 
how many children are going to go to bed hungry tonight and how many we 
could feed with that amount of money; how many feeding tubes we have 
withdrawn by our own indifference in this body, by the decisions that 
we have made in this body that pit one group against another.
  I found myself wondering where the compassion was last week when we 
tried to rally the Members of this body behind the Congressional Black 
Caucus' agenda and budget and pointed out to them that 886,000 more 
people died over the last 10 years, African Americans, because they did 
not get the same kind of quality of medical care that white Americans 
got, just the difference in the qualities.
  Where was your compassion when we tried to get you to address that 
issue?
  The compassion comes out in this one case, but where is the 
compassion when we point out to you every single day that people are 
starving and dying and seeking justice and you will not hear it?
  How do we define compassion here? We have got to look at a bigger 
global picture, I think. You cannot just react to one person's 
situation. Where is your compassion when we need you?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate intently; and the 
complaints that I have heard from people who are opposed to this bill, 
feelings that are sincerely held and emotions that are sincerely held 
is why are we picking on this one case, the case of Terri Schiavo?
  That was not my desire in the beginning, and it was not the desire of 
the entire House of Representatives either.
  Wednesday night the House passed H.R. 1332, which was a bill which I 
introduced that applied to everybody who is in an incapacitated state, 
a major protection for people who are disabled. Everybody who is 
disabled could get a Federal review of their Federal constitutional and 
legal rights, including that under the Americans With Disability Act.
  We had a debate on the floor, and it passed unanimously. And there 
was a move in the other body to bring it up, and it was objected to; 
and that is why this issue was not resolved with a general law of 
general application. I hope we revisit that issue some time in the 
future so that we do not have to deal with a specific case again. But 
we are here because we could not get H.R. 1332 passed in the other 
body.
  I also think this is an issue of priorities, priorities of what we 
put a higher priority on in terms of how we provide food and 
nourishment to living human beings. In Florida they have a statute 
number 828.12 that says if you do not feed an animal you can go to jail 
for a year and be fined $5,000. So in Florida an animal has a higher 
right than this woman, and that is a wrong priority, and this bill 
attempts to correct it.
  No Federal court has agreed to hear Terri Schiavo's Federal claims 
while her State court remedies were not yet exhausted. Now that her 
State courts remedies are exhausted, she has only two means of 
obtaining Federal court review under current law.

[[Page H1723]]

  The first means is in the lower Federal court through the habeas 
corpus statute, and the second is by petitioning the Supreme Court 
directly. First she can try to obtain habeas relief under the current 
Federal law. On Friday she was denied that relief by the Florida 
Federal District Court. That denial has been appealed to the 11th 
Circuit Court of Appeals which requested the briefs of her husband's 
lawyers by seven o'clock tonight. No one knows when the 11th circuit 
will make a final decision, and they may yet deny her habeas relief. So 
time is of the essence.
  In any case, even if she is granted a habeas review of her case, she 
faces a major obstacle in that the Federal habeas corpus statute 
essentially requires the Federal court to defer to the State court's 
determination regarding the facts of this case. So even if the habeas 
petition is granted, the deck is stacked against her.
  Second, Terri Schiavo's lawyers can try to obtain relief in the 
Supreme Court. So far her lawyers have petitioned for and been denied 
an emergency hearing. Her lawyers are currently pursuing an ordinary 
appeal directly to the Supreme Court, but that appeal process will 
extend for weeks at least; and in any case, her appeal will likely be 
denied because the Supreme Court will generally not take a case without 
a lower Federal court's first establishing a record.
  The bottom line is that first, the 11th circuit may yet deny Terri 
Schiavo her habeas petition. Second, even if they granted it, she would 
likely lose her case under the very difficult procedural hurdles any 
habeas petitioner faces. Third, she has already been denied an 
emergency review by the Supreme Court. And, fourth, the ordinary review 
process in the Supreme Court will take far too long. She will probably 
die in the interim.
  Consequently, Terri Schiavo's only hope is the current bill which 
will guarantee a fresh review of her case in the lower Federal court 
immediately, without any deference to State court determination and 
with the lower Federal court issuing a stay of the State court order 
until it can determine the Federal claims the court is required to hear 
under this bill on its merits.
  That is what Terri Schiavo needs, and that is what this bill will get 
her, and that is why it should pass.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) earlier implied that 
I was being inconsistent because I said I was for habeas corpus. He 
quoted something. He has just cited the inadequacy of habeas corpus in 
this case. Yes, I am for habeas corpus. This goes, as he just 
acknowledged, far beyond it.
  Secondly, he acknowledged our objections to this individual private 
bill on one case by blaming the Senate. In other words, he has 
acknowledged that this is an inappropriate bill and that is all we have 
said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Cleaver).
  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.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a 
unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise first to extend my thoughts and prayers to the 
loved ones of Teresa Marie Schiavo at this extraordinarily difficult 
time.
  America has seen the anguish in the faces of Ms. Schiavo's family 
members. The legislation we are considering will determine whether we 
will send to federal court one case that has been adjudicated in 
Florida's state courts for nearly a decade.
  For the past seven years, this particular case has traveled through 
Florida's state court system. The Florida courts determined through a 
review of testimony that, as her husband has testified, Terri Schiavo 
would not have wanted her life continued by artificial means. This 
Congress has chosen to disregard the ruling of the state court, the 
appeals court and Florida's Supreme Court. This bill stands in stark 
contrast to the principles of federalism, and it is the wrong direction 
for this Congress to take.
  But as this debate is carried out before the entire world, it is 
clear that the issue is far more fundamental than state versus federal 
jurisdiction. The issue before us involves one of the most personal and 
controversial matters we face as humans: how do we deal with end-of-
life care decisions for patients who cannot speak for themselves? 
Certainly not through this unprecedented act of intrusion into a 
personal family matter.
  I believe the authors of this bill know that this is not the correct 
approach. Section 9 of this bill includes a ``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, 
fluids, or medical care.''
  When to stop life support when a person has no chance of recovery is 
an arduous decision. It is for that reason that Congress passed in 1990 
the Patient Self-Determination Act as part of OBRA '90, which requires 
all hospitals, long term care facilities, home health agencies, hospice 
programs and HMOs that receive Medicare and Medicaid dollars to 
recognize a patient's living will and power of attorney for health care 
as advance directives. Health care organizations must provide patients 
with written information about establishing an advance directive and 
document if the patient has an advance directive that is placed in the 
patient's medical record. Patients are then able to decide in advance 
what medical treatment they want to receive if they become physically 
or mentally unable to communicate their wishes.
  This piece of legislation gives patients the right to make choices 
and decisions about the types and extent of medical care they wish for 
themselves. With this act, patients can specify if they want to accept 
or refuse specific medical care. They can also identify a legal 
representative for urgent health care decision purposes. Then if they 
become unable to make decisions due to illness, the patients' wishes 
have been clearly documented at an earlier point of time.
  Unfortunately, Ms. Schiavo did not execute an advance directive. 
There is conflicting information as to her wishes as expressed by her 
husband and parents. That conflict was resolved by the appropriate 
Florida court. It is not appropriate for Congress to pass special 
legislation for this one case.
  Fifteen years after the passage of the Patient Self-Determination 
Act, the vast majority of Americans have not completed an advance 
directive. My colleague in the Senate, Bill Nelson, has introduced 
legislation that would improve compliance with the 1990 legislation and 
provide a benefit under Medicare for end-of-life consultation. That is 
the bill Congress should move as we debate this complex issue, not the 
bill that's currently before us.
  If we enact this bill, it could very well result in an avalanche of 
cases in federal court. According to medical experts, as many as 35,000 
Americans--nearly one-third of them children--are in a condition 
similar to that of Terri Schiavo. Their families face the same 
difficult decision-making process that Ms. Schiavo's parents and 
husband are contending with. I believe most Americans would agree that 
the last thing we want to do is encourage more divisive court cases and 
bills of this nature.
  Regardless of the outcome of this vote, there will be no clear 
winners at the conclusion of this debate. Our judicial system and the 
rights of patients and their next-of-kin to make end-of-life decisions 
with their providers will be clear losers. Congress should never have 
considered this legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

[[Page H1724]]

  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, a girl from Indianapolis, Indiana. For the life of me, I cannot 
understand why we are here. We were all snatched out of our houses of 
worship to run to Washington to violate the trial of the judicial, the 
legislative, and the administrative. But I guess the leadership 
understands what it is. They are calling it a wedge between Democrats 
and Republicans, I am calling it what is right and what is wrong.
  We have no business being here. There are families across this 
country who are losing their Medicare right now because of the policy 
we set, and they cannot get any more. The doctors are screaming. I am 
sure a lot of people have heard them. They are screaming to their 
Congress people saying give our Medicare and our Medicaid back or else 
we cannot treat these patients. Yet we are going to make one single 
case in Florida get all the Medicare they want.
  My heart goes out to this family. I know this is a very dark season 
for them. I know justice will prevail and God will have the last 
answer. But Congress should not have the last answer because it is none 
of our business. This is called meddling.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to speak from love and compassion, not just the law, and 
embrace the strongest pro-family position as we move in this debate.
  The Schiavo and Schindler families need our prayers to do for Terry 
what not a single one of us wishes to imagine, to make a decision on 
the life of a beloved as they traverse the jagged edge of being.
  Terri's family, all of them, love her. She is not alone. But her 
being belongs not to us but to God and to them. All of us are mere 
bystanders, the Speaker, ABC News, Jeb Bush, and every single one of 
us. Only Terri's family has walked the profound journey of 
accompaniment with her for the last 15 years, and it has been a long 
suffering one.
  Of one thing I am certain. This decision on Terri does not belong in 
this Congress. In fact, it does not even belong in the courts. It lies 
with the family, those closest to her, even when that family is 
divided, bitter, exhausted, and unable to reconcile.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have spent this 
evening reiterating factually inaccurate information, and I want to 
make sure we clear it up.
  The independent guardian ad litem appointed to represent Terri 
Schiavo has said in his report that, despite the facts cited by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said that Terri felt 
pain and laughs and cries, that that is factually inaccurate; that her 
cerebral cortex has been liquefied, and that is the area of the brain 
that responds to emotion and reason. So that is impossible what they 
have detailed here tonight.
  Additionally, they talk about six neurologists and eight physicians 
that have said that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. Also 
factually inaccurate. Those physicians to which they refer have only 
viewed Terri via videotape. The five court-appointed physicians that 
have examined Terri, two appointed on Michael Schiavo's side, two on 
the Schindlers' side, and one court-appointed physician, who have all 
examined her, the board certified neurologists who had scientifically-
based academically-researched testimony, their testimony was deemed to 
be clear and convincing by the court that she was and is in a 
persistent vegetative state. The other physicians' testimony was 
discounted as anecdotal only.
  In addition to that, I want to just close with the commentary from 
the guardian ad litem. He spent 20 of 30 days with her. He put his face 
up close to hers and tried to make eye contact, pleading desperately, 
trying to will her into giving him any kind of sign. He said, I would 
beg her, please, Terri, help me. You want to believe there is some 
connection. You hope she is going to sit up in bed and say, ``Hey, I'm 
really here, but don't tell anybody.'' Or, ``I'm really here, tell 
everybody.''
  But Schiavo never made eye contact. When Wolfson visited her when her 
parents were there, she never made eye contact with them either, he 
said. And for all of Wolfson's pleadings and coaxings, he never got 
what he most wanted: A sign. He said, I felt like there was something 
distinctive about whoever Terri is, but I was not clear it was there, 
inside the vessel.
  During those 30 days, Wolfson was plagued by nightmares. He concluded 
that the medical and legal evidence behind Schiavo's diagnosis of being 
in a persistent vegetative state was credible, but he still felt that 
for all their expertise, those medical experts would never truly know 
where Schiavo was.
  He was dismayed to learn Friday that Barbara Weller, an attorney for 
the Schindlers, claimed Schiavo tried to speak. He said, Terri does not 
speak. To claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction.''
  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.

[[Page 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.

                              {time}  0015

  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.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, our goal must be to honor the wishes of 
Theresa Schiavo regarding this difficult end-of-life decision.
  We are a nation of laws. That is what distinguishes our country from 
so many others. In this case, the courts of the State of Florida have 
thoroughly reviewed the facts of this case and weighed the evidence 
about what Theresa Schiavo would want. They have concluded that Theresa 
Schiavo, through her words and deeds before her accident, would not 
want to be kept artificially alive in a persistent vegetative state.
  The Congress should not now substitute its judgment for that of 
Theresa Schiavo and the Florida courts. Who are we to impose our own 
personal preferences in this case? We should not be playing doctor, 
judge, and jury.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, today Members of Congress have come from all 
over the Country, WTA to uphold the most essential right that any of us 
posses the right to life.
  As we stand here today, a woman is dying. She dies not as the result 
of an underlying disease or illness, but because a judge has decided 
that her life is not one worth living. This despite evidence that she 
makes attempts to respond to her parents, cries, follows movement with 
her eyes. With such evidence and her parents crying out in her defense, 
how can we not intervene?
  As we stand here in Washington, Terri is being starved to death. We 
refer to the ``removal of feeding tubes,'' but let's talk about what is 
really happening. Not only has a tube delivering food and water been 
removed, but her parents have been barred from even putting ice chips 
on her tongue. Yesterday, advocates were arrested for attempting to 
bring water to Terri. To bar parents and relatives from offering the 
most basic of comforts to a dying loved one is not only an egregious 
overreach of judicial powers it is cruel and morally wrong. I ask, is 
this about removing a tube or about starving a disabled woman?
  Some will argue that this is about Terri's right to die. Yet, Terri 
has no living will, no Do Not Resuscitate order and her husband's claim 
that she would not want to be kept alive only surfaced years after she 
became disabled.
  Last week this body passed legislation that would protect all 
Americans in cases similar to this one, but Senate democrats stood in 
the way of that valuable measure. Now for nearly sixty hours, Terri has 
been denied sustenance while Republican leadership in both Houses have 
negotiated the legislation before us today. Though I regret that 
certain members of this body and the Senate, stood in the way of 
passing the legislation. approved last week, I am pleased that we now 
have an opportunity to vote on this measure.
  This bill does not ensure Terri's survival, but it does give her and 
her parents an opportunity similar to that which we make available to 
murderers sentenced to death row. Under this legislation Terri's case 
will be reassessed in a federal court and we expect that she will be 
fed once again. It is my hope that the federal court will handle this 
case better than the egregious dereliction of judicial duty exhibited 
in the Florida Court.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of the motives of those who would remove 
Terri's link to life, their judgment would violate the most cherished 
right endowed to all persons: the right to life. We stand today not for 
political purposes, but consistent with our constitutional duty to 
sustain that right for every citizen.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, many families have had to make 
incredibly difficult

[[Page H1726]]

decisions regarding medical support for their loved ones. As technology 
continues to advance, there will be even more heart-wrenching decisions 
ahead, and any of us could be involved in one.
  The proper role of the federal government in such decisions is not 
self-evident to me. Certainly, we should not have Congress debate, 
case-by-case, what action is or is not appropriate for a particular 
patient.
  Government at some level may have a role to ensure that the patient 
is not the victim of a spouse or family members who find the patient's 
medical disability inconvenient. My view is that when in doubt, society 
should err on the side of life.
  I am concerned that in this case most Members of Congress have not 
had the opportunity for careful study and consideration of the issues 
raised. It has come before us late, when time is short and the 
consequences of various steps are unclear.
  Here, I will vote for the bill before us. My understanding is that 
the measure is narrowly drawn and will set no precedent. It essentially 
provides for another look at the unusual facts of this case without 
dictating a result.
  It is very distressing that anyone would look at these matters from a 
political viewpoint. Core beliefs about when life begins and ends are 
far too important for any such calculations. In fact, I hope each 
citizen will spend time thinking about how our country can best deal 
with such cases and praying that we get it right.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in 
support of S. 686. This legislation would allow either of Terri's 
parents to bring suit in federal court for the violation of any right 
under the constitution or laws of the United States relating to ``the 
withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment 
necessary to sustain Ms. Schiavo's life.
  What we are doing is providing Terri Schiavo the same legal 
protections that we afford a convicted criminal who has been sentenced 
to death. A Florida judge has issued an order that will have the effect 
of ending Ms. Schiavo's life, so the least we can do is allow a federal 
court to review the matter. If we ensure murderers and rapists the 
benefit of a federal review, we should do it for this helpless woman.
  This is a terribly difficult issue for all those involved--not just 
Ms. Schiavo's parents and siblings, but also her husband. I realize he 
would prefer Congress stay out of the matter entirely. However, the 
14th Amendment states that ``no state shall deprive any person of life 
. . . without due process of law.'' In this case I believe it is 
entirely appropriate that we err on the side of caution--all we're 
doing is seeking a federal review of what has happened in the state 
courts to ensure that all constitutional rights, all of the basic 
protections that we afford a criminal, have been afforded to Terri 
Schiavo as well.
  As medical technology continues to improve, we are left with many 
difficult questions--``right to die issues,'' therapeutic cloning and 
stem cell research issues. These are questions I sometimes doubt we as 
men and women are truly capable of answering. In these cases the only 
thing we can do is follow the law, and the law provides for the 
opportunity for federal review in cases where a person will be put to 
death. Thus, I believe Terri Schiavo too deserves this opportunity.
  This entire case hinges on what Terri Schiavo herself would have 
wanted. I am aware of the cases in Florida state courts and the 
findings they have reached, both in terms of what they believe Ms. 
Schiavo would have chosen and the likelihood that new treatments could 
improve her condition. But in this instance I believe we should be as 
thorough as possible, which is why I support this legislation.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I submit this article for the Record. This 
bill must be passed. This Congress is right to stand up for a woman who 
is incapacitated to some extent yes, but does not require extraordinary 
measures to live. We must allow a thorough review of her case. The love 
of her family is so great we should honor it.

            [From the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Mar. 20, 2005]

                         Starving for the Truth

                           (By Dennis Roddy)

       When Mary Jane Owen thinks of Terri Schiavo, she remembers 
     a day in 1986 and the hospital in Washington. Pneumonia was 
     filling Owen's lungs. Owen cannot walk and is half deaf. At 
     the time she was also blind. The doctor leaned into her good 
     ear and said, ``Don't ask for antibiotics. Pneumonia is a 
     friend of the elderly. It's a great way to die.''
       Without enough breath to shriek, Owen, in her early 60s at 
     the time, had to speak clearly enough to let this doctor know 
     he was fired.
       ``Get out of my room,'' she told him. ``Get out of my 
     life.'' Pneumonia might be a great friend to those who want 
     to die. Owen, who took antibiotics, was later cured of her 
     blindness and currently works as a disabled rights advocate 
     in Washington, D.C., wasn't in the mood to chumbuddy with 
     death. Possibly, because she arrived in a wheelchair, doctors 
     assumed she'd prefer to leave on a gurney.
       That's why she wonders about Terri Schiavo, whose husband 
     wants her out of not only his life, but her own, too. 
     Described alternately as in a ``persistent vegetative state'' 
     and ``a locked-in'' condition, Schiavo, who has lived with 
     brain damage since 1990, either does or does not understand 
     what is going on around her. Her husband, Michael, says she 
     is an empty vessel who would not have wanted to remain 
     present in body only. Her parents and some former caregivers 
     say she reacts to their voices, seems to recognize them. On 
     Friday, a Senate committee, trying to forestall the 
     withdrawal of feeding, subpoenaed her, though unsuccessfully. 
     The action is not as silly as it sounds. At one point, after 
     she presumably became vegetative, Terri Schiavo was taken to 
     a shopping mall.
       When it comes to the disabled, or at least those too 
     disabled to advocate for themselves, deliberation about their 
     fates resembles property law. Michael Schiavo, as Terri's 
     husband--who has started a new family with a fiancee--holds 
     the powers of guardianship over his wife. He has persuaded a 
     Florida judge to allow hospital workers to withhold 
     nourishment and allow Terri to die. Judge George Greer has 
     declined a request by the family to allow Terri to be fed and 
     given water orally. That is to say, Terri Schiavo's parents 
     think she can be fed by mouth and the judge in the case 
     declines to find out if this is so. On Friday, Judge Greer 
     reinstated an earlier order and Schiavo's feeding tube was 
     removed.
       One former caregiver, Heidi Law, has said under oath that 
     ``on three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small 
     mouthfuls of Jell-O, which she was able to swallow and 
     enjoyed immensely.''
       It is one thing to withdraw a feeding tube; another 
     entirely to withhold that day's meal tray.
       That is why debating Terri Schiavo as a right-to-die 
     argument misses the point.
       ``Would it seem inappropriate at some point to emphasize 
     that people with disabilities feel threatened by the idea 
     that a `flawed' life can be judicially eliminated?'' Owen 
     asked. It only seems inappropriate because the arguments 
     being made about the ``right'' of the brain dead to die are 
     being framed around a woman whose brain death is far from 
     proven.
       The facts are these: Terri Schiavo collapsed in 1990. She 
     has been in hospitals and nursing homes since then. 
     Videotapes depict a young woman who seems to respond to some 
     voice stimuli, but does not communicate. At least three 
     affidavits are on file from former nursing home attendants 
     who insist Terri showed some hope of making progress, but 
     that her husband insisted she be given no rehabilitation.
       One nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, said Terri ``spoke on a 
     regular basis, saying such things as `Mommy' and `help me.' 
     `` Iyer said that when she put a washcloth in Terri's hands 
     to keep her fingers from curling together, ``Michael saw it 
     and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.''
       Michael Schiavo's reticence could well have been an 
     unwillingness to open himself to the cruelties of false hope. 
     Terri's family is convinced he wants rid of her so he can 
     marry his live-in girlfriend and use up the $50,000 or so 
     that remains of a $1 million medical malpractice settlement.
       The underlying argument for protecting Terri Schiavo is 
     predicated on the idea that life, at its core, is sacrosanct, 
     something with which we interfere at peril to our own places 
     in the universal order. The problem with Terri's most 
     prominent defenders is that they seem to find it easiest to 
     defend someone who cannot interfere with the debate by 
     expressing her own views. Televangelist D. James Kennedy 
     wants a law passed. Christian Defense Coalition head Patrick 
     Mahoney warns of a ``rescue'' attempt at the nursing home. 
     Militia extremist Bo Gritz said he is going to Florida to 
     perform a citizens arrest of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer.
       None of them has pledged money to a trust fund to care for 
     Terri Schiavo and, more saliently, the many more just like 
     her. They are in this because of their politics, which 
     appears to be indistinguishable from their theology, which 
     appears to be self-promotional.
       Owen worries that the sanctity of life issue misses the 
     point that Terri Schiavo is not vegetative and not a fetus. 
     She falls nowhere into the realm of what medical ethicist 
     James J. Hughes described as ``socially dead.''
       ``Most of the people in the disability community certainly 
     are not `pro-life' in the classical meaning of that, but we 
     sure as hell are against killing people with disabilities,'' 
     Owen said. ``Terri was certainly, I think, rehabilitatable in 
     the early months and years of her travail. How far she can 
     come back now is a question. But I think she should certainly 
     be given a couple months trial before Michael's allowed to 
     kill her.''
       After 15 years of despair, a few months of hope might tell 
     us something about ourselves.

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 
686.
  As many before me and many still to come have indicated, this is not 
an easy situation. If it were, we would not be here at this late hour, 
on this day. What makes this situation difficult is that there are so 
many unresolved questions.

[[Page H1727]]

  What are Terri's wishes? Terri Schiavo never prepared a living will 
to express definitively what her wishes would be. So we are left with 
conflicting accounts of what course of action Terri would want her 
doctors to take.
  What has the family decided? Opponents of this legislation say this 
should be a family issue. I agree. However, we have a family that 
disagrees on the fate of Terri's life. While her husband wants to end 
her life, we have a set of parents who are willing to do everything it 
takes medically, emotionally, and financially to save the life of their 
child.
  We have some doctors saying that Terri will not recover. Yet we also 
have other neurologists saying that with the proper medical care, there 
is a chance that she could improve considerably. And let us be clear: 
Terri is not on life support she is not brain-dead, and no heroic 
measures are needed to keep her alive, she simply needs the assistance 
of a feeding tube for food and water.
  If we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt the answers to these questions, 
we would likely not need to be here tonight. However, because these 
questions remain disputed, the responsible course of action is to err 
on the side of life.
  Some may ask why Congress is getting involved. The answer to that is 
simple. One of the primary duties of the Federal Government and Members 
of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution and the individual 
rights it sets forth. So we are acting to allow that every possible 
legal process has been exhausted to ensure that Terri's federal rights 
have been properly defended.
  One of those federal rights is the right to life. The Fourteenth 
Amendment establishes that no ``State shall deprive any person of life, 
liberty, and property, without due process of law.'' Everyday, in cases 
where the action of the state will result in the death of an 
individual, that individual is provided the opportunity to have their 
case heard in both the state and federal court systems. That is all we 
are asking to be done today.
  My thoughts and prayers, as well of those of my constituents in 19th 
district of Texas, are with Terri and her family during these difficult 
times.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, on this Sunday, I have looked into my heart 
and listened to my God in prayer, and spoken to my pastor and other 
parishioners in church. My decision this evening is an intensely 
personal one, in terms of life. As a father, husband, grandfather, and 
son in law, I have searched my soul about what the family must be going 
through.
  As a Member of Congress, I know it is in our hands to offer what is 
the ultimate hope for this young woman. We cannot guarantee how the 
courts will rule, but we must offer all avenues for review and hope. We 
would ask nothing less for any case involving the rights of a person. 
We must be compassionate about life, the life of all individuals.
  This is a tragic situation, but this young woman is not on life 
support, she is not on a respirator, she is not terminally ill, and she 
has been deprived of the physical therapy that might allow her to 
swallow and eat without a feeding tube. To look at her eyes is to see 
an individual who seems to be experiencing joy and awareness of others.
  As a parent, if she were my daughter, I would want her to live, and 
give her a chance. She has demonstrated the will and the spirit to 
live. It is right and just that we have a final set of eyes to review 
the case. The Constitution gives Congress the right to set the 
jurisdiction of the courts.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, tonight Congress is meeting in a special 
session to ensure that the most valuable right the Constitution grants 
us, the right to life, is not violated. Unfortunately, I am unable to 
appear in person tonight because my flight was delayed by bad weather, 
but please be assured that I consider the bill before the House, S. 
686, to be of the utmost importance.
  This debate is about life and the protection of life that the 
Constitution grants each of us. We are gathered, not as Republicans or 
Democrats, but as men and women trying to save a woman's life. We must 
ensure that Terri Schiavo, disabled by illness, is not unfairly 
deprived of her life. When the courts refuse to hear such a case, 
Congress must act to protect life.
  As a physician, I have been faced with many families in situations 
similar to that of Terri Schiavo's family. It is a delicate situation, 
one that pushes the boundaries of ethics, and we must therefore proceed 
with caution. But fortunately, advances in medical technology have made 
recovery possible when before it was not possible. I have seen people 
recover from illnesses to lead fulfilling lives when most thought all 
hope was lost.
  But Terri Schiavo's parents have not lost hope. They believe that 
their daughter can and will recover. Terri is not brain-dead, nor is 
she in the process of dying. She has survived for 15 years with very 
little treatment. Her parents only ask that they be allowed to care for 
her. How can we deny her parents that possibility?
  We are in this situation today because the law is not clear. The 
federal court has discretion to refuse to hear certain cases, but when 
it does so at the cost of a disabled woman's life, one who is unable to 
protect herself, we as Americans must take action. Tonight, I urge 
Congress to pass S. 686 and ensure a federal court reviews Terri 
Schiavo's case.
  In the coming months, Congress will have to consider these issues 
again, in a broader context. As medical technology advances, ethical 
and moral boundaries are inevitably pushed into new territory. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that as we move 
forward, the sanctity of life is always protected.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S. 
Constitution, the principle of states' rights, and democracy. This 
private relief measure, as I asserted last Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 
while is a flat rejection of a state's right to adjudicate these 
private matters, is a better vehicle than H.R. 1332 to allow interested 
parties to have full opportunity to address the dilemma that surrounds 
the case of Ms. Schiavo while at the same time preserving the right of 
Congress to fully debate the very important issues that lie beneath the 
special facts of this case.
  Last Wednesday on the House Floor I expressed my reservations about 
H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. I 
indicated that the scope of H.R. 1332 requires, at the very least, 
hearings before the committees of jurisdiction. This legislation was 
introduced a few hours prior to its passage--that is incomprehensible 
for a public measure.
  H.R. 1332 contains operative provisions that would amend the existing 
law of removal to allow parties to remove to federal court cases that 
involve the withdrawal of nutrition or hydration from an incapacitated 
person where the person did not leave a written advance directive as to 
treatment. That bill, as I suggested on the floor, is the wrong bill to 
fit the current situation because it does not sweep widely as a public 
bill should. Rather, it creates legal precedent while bringing relief 
to a private matter. A recent report by the Congressional Research 
Service states that ``[a] question does arise, however, whether this 
bill would have application to situations where an individual is not in 
a government facility and is not challenging a state law.''
  Before legislation of this weight is passed so hastily, all areas of 
ambiguity or speculation require fixes by way of the committee markup 
process. First, the provision found in Section 2, page 3, lines 2-3 and 
5-7 that limits the consideration of the federal court to federal 
questions, or whether authorizing the withdrawal of food or fluids or 
medical treatment to an incapacitated person constitutes ``a 
deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the U.S. 
Constitution'' should be vetted by members of the House Judiciary 
Committee for consideration of the implications of limiting federal 
purview in this fashion.
  Second, in Section 2, page 3, line 15, the drafters' reference to a 
``born individual'' is ambiguous and merits committee scrutiny. While 
an ``unborn'' individual certainly cannot conceivably execute a 
``written advance directive,'' as found on page 2, line 22, this 
reference is limiting and again, merits serious scrutiny in order to 
prevent floods of litigation over the interpretation of this term.
  Thirdly, ``significant relationship'' as found on page 3, line 20 can 
mean virtually anything and simply invites voluminous litigation over 
semantics that can be clarified in legislative history by way of the 
proper legislative process--and hearings before committees of 
jurisdiction.
  If the House Majority Leadership had worked with the other body last 
Thursday to find an agreement as to the private measure that passed, 
neither Ms. Schiavo nor the parties interested in her case would have 
endured the stress that surrounded the removal of feeding tubes that 
occurred on Friday.
  My colleague, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 
responded to my words on the House Floor last Wednesday that ``[i]f the 
Private Relief Bill were introduced or came over from the [other body], 
Terri Schiavo would be dead before we could consider it.'' To the 
contrary, neither Ms. Schiavo is dead nor is the ability of the House 
to consider the private measure dead. The measure passed in the other 
body, S. 653, a private bill, is more appropriate, and the bill that we 
now consider is nearly identical to it. The only difference between the 
two bills is that the final House version contains a ``sense of 
Congress'' provision as to the need to ``consider policies regarding 
the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are 
incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or 
withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical care.'' The ``sense of 
Congress'' provision rather than an entire stand-alone bill, as 
suggested by the distinguished Chairman, is a more prudent way of 
stressing the need to consider these issues.
  While I believe that the Private Bill is a better vehicle than the 
public bill in controversial

[[Page H1728]]

matters, I believe that this bill threatens the sanctity of democracy 
and the concept of the separation of powers. Eighteen state judges have 
already adjudicated this matter, so passage of this bill would amount 
to an appeal granted by the legislative branch of government--in clear 
contravention of the U.S. Constitution. The will of 536 elected 
officials should not affect the final disposition of a personal family 
matter. What is most important in this situation is the wish of Terri 
Schiavo, and Congress cannot properly dispense of this question without 
being politically motivated. As is the case with many measures that the 
Republican Congress has slid past this body that purport to expand 
rights, this measure will contract the States' rights to be the final 
arbiter in private matters.
  For the reasons stated above, Mr. Speaker, I reject this legislation.
  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, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               YEAS--203

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn

                                NAYS--58

     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Davis (FL)
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Evans
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller (NC)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Price (NC)
     Reichert
     Rothman
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Thompson (MS)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wu

                            NOT VOTING--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Case
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0045

  So (two thirds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and 
the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, my flight from 
Texas brought me to the Capitol one minute after the vote was closed. I 
intended to vote ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, on S. 686, I did not 
attend in protest of the politicization of a profound medical and 
family tragedy. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________