mr. speaker , i yield myself 6 minutes . 
mr. speaker , it is never a good recommendation for a bill when its proponents deny its plain meaning . 
the gentleman from wisconsin said this is not a private bill . 
well , perhaps in the technical and irrelevant terms of the house calendar it is not a private bill . 
it is in fact a very private bill . 
it is so private that it deals only with the schiavo case and her parents . 
and in an admission that it is not a very good idea , a provision of this bill , really quite unusual , says by the way , we hope no one will pay attention to this in the future . 
in legal language , that is , this is not to be precedent setting . 
well , if this is such a good idea , if congress acting as the super supreme court of florida is the right thing to do for ms. schiavo , why go to such pains , those of you who wrote the bill , to say it should not be a precedent ? 
by the way , anyone who thinks it will not be a precedent , of course , is not paying attention . 
what you will do today , if this bill passes , is invite every family dispute of this terrible , painful , heartrending nature to come to the congress . 
when brothers and sisters disagree , when parents disagree , the courts of the states will have no relevance ; probably the federal courts will not . 
every single dispute will come here . 
now , here is what we are doing here , and it is not the federalism argument that bothers me as much as it is the separation of powers . 
we have already heard debates . 
what was the fee in the legal case ? 
what about the hospice ? 
does she or does she not , this poor woman who was so terribly hurt , does she or does she not have brain function ? 
does she or does she not respond ? 
nobody in here knows . 
nobody in here has any way of knowing . 
what we have are members choosing a side based on their ideologies . 
there are people who believe , in what is described as pro life , that nothing that terminates a life is ever justified . 
in fact , people have said , well , if she had said so , but many of those who hold that do not think you have a right to say that . 
there are others of us who believe , and i must tell you , from what i have read , if i were a member of the schiavo family , if a member of my family were involved , i would have made the same decision . 
but i have n't made the decision . 
i have no right to make that decision , and i have no information for it . 
separation of powers . 
when they wrote the constitution , they were not kidding around . 
they made some sensible distinctions . 
we legislate on broad policy . 
when you get to individual ajudications , when you get to the case , people have said , well , we disagree with the medical report . 
we had the eminent dr . 
frist looking at it on television and making his diagnosis . 
we have people making specific judgments about her wishes . 
we have people making specific judgments about her medical condition . 
we have not spent very much time on that . 
judges have done that , lawyers have done that , in adversarial proceedings they have done that . 
now , i know we heard a disparagement of the supreme court of florida . 
people did not like the way they voted 4 years ago , but what does that have to do with whether or not the husband 's wishes and wife 's wishes are carried out in this case ? 
that is why we should not be making this decision . 
if you listen to the debate , this is confirmation of what the writers of the constitution did when they said separation of powers . 
congress deals with broad policy . 
individual adjudications are made by judges , with cases of lawyers and presentations and evidence . 
none of that has happened here . 
you are asking to make a decision based on most of us knowing very little , if anything , at all . 
ideology is driving this , and that is why we have a separation of powers . 
this is not a bill , by the way . 
this is a court decision . 
what happened has been that this has been very well litigated in florida , litigated on a number of occasions , with lawyers on all sides . 
because the majority , for their ideological reasons , do not like the decision of the florida courts , we have now a new principle ; that the congress of the united states will be the super supreme court of a state . 
in lawyers terms , we can vacate a judgment and then remand it . 
but not even remand it . 
not send it back to the court that decided it , to a better court . 
talk about forum shopping . 
people wanted to get rid of forum shopping . 
this is the grandparent of all forum shops . 
we dislike what the courts in florida have done , so we cancel their decision and we send it elsewhere . 
the gentleman from wisconsin said this does not create any new rights . 
well , it gives standing by its own terms to the parents . 
and , by the way , if it does not create any new rights , why is it necessary ? 
if in fact without this bill no new rights have been created , why could they not have gone to court without us ? 
the answer is they could not . 
because that is not what american jurisprudence has said . 
i believe , as i said , if i were making this decision for myself or anyone close to me , i would make the same decision michael schiavo made . 
but i would not try to defend my judgment in this case . 
i do not know her medical condition . 
i do not know what her wishes were . 
but neither do any of you . 
this is as difficult a decision as human beings can make . 
i am proud to be a politician , but i think we would all agree that you should not make this kind of a decision , this kind of a decision about life , in these terribly emotional circumstances . 
it should not be made politically . 
i think we would all agree to that . 
but then let us look at the corollary . 
if you do not want a decision to be made politically , why in the world do you ask 535 politicians to make it ? 
does anyone think that this decision will be made without consideration of electoral support or party of ideology ? 
of course not . 
and again , this is not the only case . 
people should understand that , those who are watching what we do . 
despite your argument that this is not setting a precedent , every aggrieved party in any similar litigation can now come to congress and ask us to make a series of decisions . 
this is the point . 
this is a terribly difficult decision , which we are institutionally totally incompetent to make . 
to allow ideology to triumph in that context is a shame . 
