Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the legislation I have just introduced, the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, enrolled as H.R. 1151. This legislation's immediate intent is to deal with the issues surrounding Terry Schiavo.

I practiced medicine for 15 years prior to my election to the House of Representatives. I still see patients once a month, and I was involved in numerous cases involving situations like this.

Terry has been described in the press as being in a vegetative state, and I believe that she is not, absolutely that she is not. The correct term to describe Terry Schiavo is brain-damaged, severely brain- damaged, but you can see her on videos. Now the judge will not let people such as myself go in there to see her even though the family would like me to be able to examine her. But according to the family, she is the same way. She is responsive. She will look at you, attempt to vocalize. She will attempt to kiss her parents.

The judge in the case, Judge Greer, has tried to dismiss these obvious behaviors indicating that she does have a higher level of functioning and she should not be described as vegetative, as primitive reflexes. And I would assert as a physician that it is extremely dangerous to walk down that kind of a path, where you have somebody with mental retardation, disability or any type of brain injury and you start ascribing obvious human-like behavior on the part of these individuals as being primitive reflexes and that these people are expendable.

Terry is under a court order to withdraw food and water. This is unprecedented in our legal history. Previous cases that received national notoriety, like the Karen Ann Quinlan case, involved family and physicians mutually recognizing that this person did not have a chance of surviving and wanting to withdraw, in the case of the Quinlan case, a respirator, and the court going along with it because the clinicians involved did not want to be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder.

In this case, there is a dispute. The husband wants to terminate food and water, and the family, in the form of the mother and father, vehemently being opposed to it.

The judge has stepped in, and I think he has made some clinical judgments that are not really founded in good clinical science. I am certain if doctors put an EEG on her, we would see extensive brain waves indicating activity in the visual cortex and in the speech centers, and she should not be defined as vegetative,

My bill, H.R. 1151, Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, would simply extend to Terry Schiavo the same benefits currently afforded death row inmates, and she is under a death warrant, death by essential dehydration. It would allow her to receive legal representation, the same kind of legal representation that death row inmates receive. Currently, she does not have her own attorney. Her parents have an attorney. Her attorney has an attorney. Under this bill, she would get legal representation. It would allow for a more detailed review of the case.

As a clinician, she has gotten, to my knowledge, according to the family I have spoken to, no therapy since 1993. I know from having worked with stroke victims and therapists, you can sometimes give these people thicken liquids, and they are able to swallow. Evidently, Terry, prior to the termination of her therapy, was working with a speech therapist and was able to say a

few words. She may be able to survive without a tube.

Another important point I want to make here, there was a $1.56 million medical malpractice settlement that was provided for her care. Much of that has been spent on legal fees trying to end her life. This is not a case where the State is spending a lot of money. The resources are there to take care of her needs in the future. Her parents do not want to see her dying of starvation and thirst. I think it is fully appropriate for us to step in, for her to have a right, the same right a death row inmate gets, and to allow, hopefully, review in front of a Federal judge reviewing all of the facts in this case. When doctors really look at the facts, I think it is very, very hard to justify ending her life in such a way.

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to sign on and support the bill and, most importantly, for our leadership on both sides of the aisle to allow expedited review. If not, her tube is scheduled to come out March 18.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a clear lesson for the American public about how Congress and American politics operate today.

Make no mistake, this is not about what Terri Schiavo wants. It is clear from testimony of the family members who are fighting against Terri's husband that they would want the feeding tube reinserted no matter what Terri wants. Tom DeLay says he doesn't care what her husband wants. This is all about people who have chosen to use this poor woman as a political football. This legislative spectacle was an artful attempt to divert the public's attention.

But in your mind's eye, the face in the picture that you should be thinking about is not Terri Schiavo's: You should be worried about the face of you or your loved one in the middle of a media circus, or worse, denied the right to control your own fate.

This is not a narrow, specific bill about a single case. Their true intentions were revealed by H.R. 1332, the bill that Tom DeLay had the House pass last Wednesday. I led the debate against H.R. 1332 because it would have effectively overruled Oregon's Death with Dignity Act with language so broad and sweeping that it would call into question every living will and end of life directive. Anybody who wanted to force the issue, whether business partner, estranged family member, or friend could drag your loved ones into Federal court.

Make no mistake, the goal is to take away your choice in making end of life decisions, just as their agenda is to control your choices at the beginning of life, whether regarding contraception or a woman's right to choose.

The Schiavo case has received unbelievable attention and scrutiny by politicians and judges at every level in the State of Florida. For years, the battle has raged in a State that is controlled by Republicans and is governed by the President's brother. This is not about due process and letting the system work. Rather it is about some zealots who do not agree with the verdicts of the courts and the professional opinions of medical experts.

The hypocrisy of Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership in Congress is breathtaking. The only time they trust the Federal courts is when they are using them as a political tactic. This fall they passed in the House of Representatives, bills that declared the Federal courts incompetent to rule on cases involving the pledge of allegiance and same-sex marriage.

In a statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will ``continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans.'' But the facts make it hard to believe that the President is standing on principle. In 1999, then Governor Bush signed a law that ``allows hospitals to discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree.'' Just days ago the law permitted Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a 6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove life support from Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. The President has not commented on either case.

Because of this media circus, attention is being diverted away from the seniors that will suffer and die in this country as a result of the Republican leadership's budget proposal to shortchange Medicaid. The very financial sources that have kept Terri alive for 15 years, Medicaid and her malpractice settlement, are under attack by the President and Tom Delay. For the time being, Republican leaders are succeeding in their effort to change the subject, and obscure this fact.

While Congress's involvement is another sad chapter in the fight against Terri's wishes, I'm glad that we forced them to narrow the reach of this bill, at least for the time being. It is still an unfortunate precedent of inappropriate Congressional intervention into a personal family matter.

In the final analysis, I'm pleased that the public was able to see what the stakes are and what some politicians and zealots are willing to do. Ultimately, it is this public awareness that will defeat efforts to take away the choice for each of us and of our families to control our own destinies.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more difficult decision for a family than to remove a loved one from life support. My heart goes out to the Schiavo family in this very personal and difficult time. However, I believe this to be a private family matter to be decided based on their own faith and values, without the government's intervention.

The Schiavo case has been a long and difficult one for Ms. Schiavo's family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I trust that the multiple court decisions and the multiple court reviews were properly evaluated. Each time the evidence pointed to the same unbiased conclusion: Terri Schiavo's wishes were clear and convincing. Doctors who have examined Ms. Schiavo have consistently said that she is in a persistent vegetative state. The only ones who disagree are those who are deciding based on videotapes. In fact, the Florida State legislature has not overridden the decisions of their State courts.

There is no doubt that this is a family tragedy. But, there is no room for the Federal Government in this case or in any similar case. It is unfair that this family during their time of grief has become a political pawn in an ideological war the conservative leadership is inappropriately propelling.

Mr. Speaker, Congress intervening in this matter sets a bad precedent for our entire legal system. The Republican leadership has repeatedly made a point of calling for the removal of Federal court jurisdiction over issues, such as gay marriage or displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings, when the Federal courts render a decision that does not meet with their political ideology. In fact, they have gone so far as to introduce several legislative initiatives to strip controversial religious and social issues from the jurisdiction of Federal courts. Now, ironically, when a State has

rendered a final decision that the Republican leadership disagrees with, they support reinstating the power of ``activist judges'' on the Federal level. The Republican leadership cannot have it both ways and should not interfere with the judicial process that has worked for over 200 years.

Instead we should be fighting to cover the 45 million Americans who are currently without health insurance and unable to get the services they need to live. We should be increasing scientific research funding to improve our medical procedures and help more people overcome the impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to judge what is right or wrong in Ms. Schiavo's particular case. Only her loved ones can truly know in their hearts what is right for her, even if they cannot agree. But, what I do know is that whether someone has the right to live or die is not a decision that the Federal Government, and Members of Congress should not make.

Mr. Speaker, Congress typically writes laws with a broad application, but sometimes a special situation, such as this one, requires unusual legislative action. Life is sacred. Many across America have voiced support in an effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Nothing can diminish the importance of life.

Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack 15 years ago and experienced brain damage. While in the hospital, tubes were inserted in her digestive system to provide nutrition and

hydration. Three years later, Terri was still talking when speech therapy was discontinued. Terri Schiavo is currently not terminally ill or in the process of dying. She is brain damaged, but she is otherwise healthy. Terri Schiavo is not on artificial life support. No extraordinary measures are being taken to keep her alive.

Ms. Schiavo is a living person. She is awake and aware of her surroundings. Many are galvanized by her cause because like me, they recognize that the right to life is one of our core fundamental human values.

The 14th Amendment states, ``No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' In this special circumstance, we were left with a last legal recourse to help save her life by providing her with the opportunity to have her case heard before a Federal court. There is clear precedent for Federal review of life and death cases.

I strongly value the importance of States' rights. This case does not weaken my resolve to fight for States' rights. The State and Federal government should not take life, but by giving the Federal court an opportunity to hear the case, this allows one more opportunity for Terri Schiavo to live.

Judge Greer of the Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court stated, ``I see no cogent reason why the committee should be able to intervene into a case involving the decision of whether or not to remain on life support.'' He added, ``I don't think that legislative agencies or bodies have business in court proceedings.''

I respectfully disagree. The Constitution not only outlines a separation of powers but also a system of checks and balances. It is Congress's duty to hold the judicial branch accountable or to act itself within its powers when it believes it is necessary.

The driving force behind many people's efforts on behalf of Ms. Schiavo was plainly to save her life. Yet there have emerged a number of difficult and complicated issues. I applaud the efforts of those who fight for Ms. Schiavo to live. These issues resonate with many as some of us contemplate how we would like to die. I, however, focus on how Congress can protect Ms. Schiavo's life because that is of paramount importance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address S. 686 for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. Numerous courts have reviewed the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, and all have agreed that the right to make decisions about her care rests solely with her legal guardian: her husband, Michael Schiavo.

Even in cases where the patient has made it clear that she did not wish to persist in a catatonic state, families face excruciating decisions about how to proceed. Disagreement about the medical facts or the express wishes of the patient only add to the agony, and often lead to painful disputes within families.

We are a nation of laws, and as such we have a proper and unbiased way of resolving these difficult situations. The Schiavo case involves a family dispute over who has final decisionmaking regarding Terri Schiavo's medical care, and as such falls exclusively under jurisdiction of the State courts. Federal courts do not have any jurisdiction in this case; the U.S. Congress does not have any jurisdiction in this case; only the courts of the State of Florida have jurisdiction here.

But Republican leaders in Congress have decided they must get involved in this tragic story. Perhaps Bill Frist sees a chance to score political points in advance of his 2008 presidential bid; perhaps Tom DeLay sees a way to distract from his ongoing ethics problems; perhaps they are motivated by more noble standards.

Regardless of their motivation, the GOP congressional leadership has pushed S. 686, legislation pushing an after-the-fact remedy by pre- empting State court jurisdiction. Foregoing even the pretense of federalism, and the notion of America as a nation of laws, S. 686 reflects the Republicans' belief that they may

pick and choose the jurisdiction of their choice, depending on the day and the case.

This bill places politics before the judgment of State judges, imposing Federal adjudication on a case that has been comprehensively reviewed and decided. S. 686 represents a gross abuse of legislative authority and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Michael Schiavo has wrestled with the agonizing decision of what to do for his wife. He has followed Terri's instructions in accordance with the laws of his State and this country. Congress has no business in this matter, which involves a family decision based on mutual agreement between a husband and wife.