House of Representives Congressional Record - Terri Schiavo

[seemslikeadream]

FLIER FROM TERRISFIGHT.ORG -- (House of Representatives - March 15, 2005)


---
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I want to read from a flier from the Web site terrisfight.org:

``Terri Schiavo is sentenced to die of starvation by the Florida courts, however:

``Terri responds to verbal, auditory and digital stimuli.

``Terri breaths normally on her own.

``Terri smiles, tries to talk to her family and friends and will move her limbs on command.

``Terri is not in a coma. She is reactive and has sleeping and wakeful periods.

``Terri is not a burden. Her parents, brother and sister have offered to care for her in a safe environment and she has a fund so is not a burden to anyone, taxpayers included.

``Terri's condition can improve with proper treatment.

``Don't let the Florida courts starve this innocent woman to death. Terri's time is running out.''

Congress can and must act this week. We cannot allow the execution of this disabled young woman.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:17:./temp/~r109wmIr3i::

[Ripley]

1. Hey if they're allowed to read obscure website info into the record...

Why don't the Dems enter GannonGuck's sex sites into the record?

[CottonBear]

2. Mr. Pitts is a lying bastard.

Shame on him.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Dr. William Hammesfahr, an M.D., board certified neurologist from Clearwa

FOR THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO -- (House of Representatives - March 20, 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

GPO's PDF
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

GPO's PDF
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.




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

GPO's PDF
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.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Terri's condition can improve

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

GPO's PDF
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.




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.

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.

[Ripley]

6. These people are completely delusional...

"let us join Terri's mother and father and cradle Terri in the arms of a just and good decision."

They are sick fucks using this woman as a toy for their pandering to the American Taliban and once again, I find myself saying they can't get any lower. Yet tomorrow I will be proven wrong again.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Terri is not a PVS, someone in a permanent vegetative state

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

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



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

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

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

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

Mr. 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

GPO's PDF
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.

[seemslikeadream]

7. Terri smiles when they come to see her She cries when they leave.

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.




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.

GPO's PDF
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

GPO's PDF
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.




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.

[seemslikeadream]

8. $5 million we are spending on this one vote this evening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

Do not let this bill pass.

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

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

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

With no legal protections at all under Texas law, and ongoing programs in Texas hospitals denying treatment with no opportunity to even seek

GPO's PDF
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

GPO's PDF
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.




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.