For the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S. Constitution, the principle of states' rights, and democracy. This private relief measure, as I asserted last Wednesday, March 16, 2005, while is a flat rejection of a state's right to adjudicate these private matters, is a better vehicle than H.R. 1332 to allow interested parties to have full opportunity to address the dilemma that surrounds the case of Ms. Schiavo while at the same time preserving the right of Congress to fully debate the very important issues that lie beneath the special facts of this case.

Last Wednesday on the House Floor I expressed my reservations about H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. I indicated that the scope of H.R. 1332 requires, at the very least, hearings before the committees of jurisdiction. This legislation was introduced a few hours prior to its passage-that is incomprehensible for a public measure.

H.R. 1332 contains operative provisions that would amend the existing law of removal to allow parties to remove to federal court cases that involve the withdrawal of nutrition or hydration from an incapacitated person where the person did not leave a written advance directive as to treatment. That bill, as I suggested on the floor, is the wrong bill to fit the current situation because it does not sweep widely as a public bill should. Rather, it creates legal precedent while bringing relief to a private matter. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service states that "[a] question does arise, however, whether this bill would have application to situations where an individual is not in a government facility and is not challenging a state law."

Before legislation of this weight is passed so hastily, all areas of ambiguity or speculation require fixes by way of the committee markup process. First, the provision found in Section 2, page 3, lines 2-3 and 5-7 that limits the consideration of the federal court to federal questions, or whether authorizing the withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment to an incapacitated person constitutes "a deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the U.S. Constitution" should be vetted by members of the House Judiciary Committee for consideration of the implications of limiting federal purview in this fashion.

Second, in Section 2, page 3, line 15, the drafters' reference to a "born individual" is ambiguous and merits committee scrutiny. While an "unborn" individual certainly cannot conceivably execute a "written advance directive," as found on page 2, line 22, this reference is limiting and again, merits serious scrutiny in order to prevent floods of litigation over the interpretation of this term.

Thirdly, "significant relationship" as found on page 3, line 20 can mean virtually anything and simply invites voluminous litigation over semantics that can be clarified in legislative history by way of the proper legislative process-and hearings before committees of jurisdiction.

If the House Majority Leadership had worked with the other body last Thursday to find an agreement as to the private measure that passed, neither Ms. Schiavo nor the parties interested in her case would have endured the stress that surrounded the removal of feeding tubes that occurred on Friday.

My colleague, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to my words on the House Floor last Wednesday that "[i]f the Private Relief Bill were introduced or came over from the [other body], Terri Schiavo would be dead before we could consider it." To the contrary, neither Ms. Schiavo is dead nor is the ability of the House to consider the private measure dead. The measure passed in the other body, S. 653, a private bill, is more appropriate, and the bill that we now consider is nearly identical to it. The only difference between the two bills is that the final House version contains a "sense of Congress" provision as to the need to "consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical care." The "sense of Congress" provision rather than an entire stand-alone bill, as suggested by the distinguished Chairman, is a more prudent way of stressing the need to consider these issues.

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

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Speaker, I reject this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov