mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank ) xz4001400 for yielding me time . 
there are a number of things that i would like to correct for the record before i begin . 
i apologize for not knowing the state that the gentleman is from , but the representation regarding the care of theresa schiavo by her husband as represented in the chamber is totally inaccurate . 
theresa 's husband , and i am quoting from the guardian ad litem report , the independent guardian ad litem report that was required by florida law during the special session in october of 2003 , it says : `` theresa 's husband , michael schiavo , and her mother , mary schindler , were virtually partners in their care of and dedication to theresa . 
there is no question but that complete trust , mutual caring , explicit love , and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating theresa were the shared intentions of and the gentleman referenced the percentage of the medical malpractice damage award being $ 486 , 000 going to attorneys ' fees and to helping her reach her demise . 
that is also totally inaccurate . 
also quoting from the guardian ad litem report : there was a medical malpractice case filed and pursued . 
michael schiavo and terri schiavo were awarded $ 750 , 000 in economic damages . 
the economic damages were put into a trust that was meticulously cared for according to the guardian ad litem and which was managed by south trust bank as the guardian and independent trustee . 
this fund was accounted for and michael schiavo had absolutely no control over its use . 
michael schiavo was awarded $ 300 , 000 for loss of consortium damages . 
that is money that was awarded to him . 
there is not very much of that left . 
and there is no truth to the accusation that he would benefit financially from that damage award and there certainly was not $ 2 million in damages awarded . 
mr. speaker , i submit for the record the report of the guardian ad litem . 
a report to governor jeb bush and the 6th judicial circuit in the matter of theresa marie schiavo theresa marie schiavo was born in the philadelphia , pennsylvania area on 3 december 1963 to robert and mary schindler . 
she has two younger siblings , robert jr. , and susan . 
through the age of 18 , theresa was , according to her parents , very overweight , until she chose to lose weight with the guidance of a physician . 
she dropped from 250 pounds to around 150 pounds , at which time she met michael schiavo . 
they dated for many months and married in november of 1984 . 
the schiavo and schindler families were close and friendly . 
theresa and michael moved to florida in 1986 and were followed shortly thereafter by theresa 's parents and siblings . 
theresa worked for the prudential life insurance company and michael was a restaurant manager . 
about three years later , without the apparent knowledge of her parents , theresa and michael sought assistance in becoming pregnant through an obstetrician who specialized in fertility services . 
for over a year , theresa and michael received fertility services and counseling in order to enhance their strongly held desire to have a child . 
by this time , theresa 's weight had dropped even further , to 110 pounds . 
she was very proud of her fabulous figure and her stunning appearance , wearing bikini bathing suits for the first time and taking great pride in her improved good looks . 
testimony and photographs bare witness to these facts . 
on the tragic early morning of 25 february 1990 , theresa collapsed in the hallway of her apartment , waking michael , who called theresa 's family and 911 . 
the lives of theresa , michael and the schindlers were to change forever . 
theresa suffered a cardiac arrest . 
during the several minutes it took for paramedics to arrive , theresa experienced loss of oxygen to the brain , or anoxia , for a period sufficiently long to cause permanent loss of brain function . 
despite heroic efforts to resuscitate , theresa remained unconscious and slipped into a coma . 
she was intubated , ventilated and trached , meaning that she was given life saving medical technological interventions , without which she surely would have died that day . 
the cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in theresa 's body . 
sodium and potassium maintain a vital , chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels . 
the cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified , but may be linked , in theory , to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day . 
while no formal proof emerged , the medical records note that the combination of aggressive weight loss , diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about theresa suffering from bulimia , an eating disorder , more common among women than men , in which purging through vomiting , laxatives and other methods of diet control becomes obsessive . 
theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at humana northside hospital , eventually emerging from her coma state , but not recovering consciousness . 
on 12 may 1990 , following extensive testing , therapy and observation , she was discharged to the college park skilled care and rehabilitation facility . 
forty-nine days later , she was transferred again to bayfront hospital for additional , aggressive rehabilitation efforts . 
in september of 1990 , she was brought home , but following only three weeks , she was returned to the college park facility because the `` family was overwhelmed by terry 's care needs. '' on 18 june 1990 , michael was formally appointed by the court to serve as theresa 's legal guardian , because she was adjudicated to be incompetent by law . 
michael 's appointment was undisputed by the parties . 
the clinical records within the massive case file indicate that theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests . 
she received regular and intense physical , occupational and speech therapies . 
theresa 's husband , michael schiavo and her mother , mary schindler , were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to theresa . 
there is no question but that complete trust , mutual caring , explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating theresa , were the shared intentions of michael schiavo and the schindlers . 
in late autumn of 1990 , following months of therapy and testing , formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement , michael took theresa to california , where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain . 
michael remained in california caring for theresa during a period of several months and returned to florida with her in january of 1991 . 
theresa was transferred to the mediplex rehabilitation center in brandon , where she received 24-hour skilled care , physical , occupational , speech and recreational therapies . 
despite aggressive therapies , physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities , only reflexive , rather than cognitive movements , random eye opening , no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally . 
on 19 july 1991 theresa was transferred to the sable palms skilled care facility . 
periodic neurological exams , regular and aggressive physical , occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994 . 
michael schiavo , on theresa 's and his own behalf , initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing theresa 's fertility therapy . 
in 1993 , the malpractice action concluded in theresa and michael 's favor , resulting in a two element award : more than $ 750 , 000 in economic damages for theresa , and a loss of consortium award ( non economic damages ) of $ 300 , 000 to michael . 
the court established a trust fund for theresa 's financial award , with south trust bank as the guardian and an independent trustee . 
this fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and michael schiavo had no control over its use . 
there is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of theresa 's estate , and the records on this matter are excellently maintained . 
after the malpractice case judgment , evidence of disaffection between the schindlers and michael schiavo openly emerged for the first time . 
the schindlers petitioned the court to remove michael as guardian . 
they made allegations that he was not caring for theresa , and that his behavior was disruptive to theresa 's treatment and condition . 
proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of michael as guardian further , it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of theresa . 
his demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as `` a nursing home administrator 's nightmare '' . 
it is notable that through more than thirteen years after theresa 's collapse , she has never had a bedsore . 
by 1994 , michael 's attitude and perspective about theresa 's condition changed . 
during the previous four years , he had insistently held to the premise that theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . 
this was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement . 
in early 1994 theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and michael , in consultation with theresa 's treating physician , elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a `` do not resuscitate '' order should theresa experience cardiac arrest . 
when the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision , michael canceled the orders . 
following the incident involving the infection , theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility . 
michael 's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with theresa 's doctor , and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for theresa 's recovery . 
it had taken michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive , vegetative state . 
it took michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life -- something he was actively encouraged to do by the schindlers , long before enmity tore them apart . 
he was even encouraged by the schindlers to date , and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating . 
but this was just prior to the malpractice case ending . 
as part of the first challenge to michael 's guardianship , the court appointed john h. pecarek as guardian ad litem to determine if there had been any abuse by michael schiavo . 
his report , issued 1 march 1994 , found no inappropriate actions and indicated that michael had been very attentive to theresa . 
after two more years of legal contention , the schindlers action against michael was dismissed with prejudice . 
efforts to remove michael as guardian were attempted in subsequent years , without success . 
hostilities increased and the schindlers and michael schiavo did not communicate directly . 
by june of 1996 , the court had to order that copies of medical reports be shared with the schindlers and that all health care providers be permitted to discuss theresa 's condition with the schindlers -- something michael had temporarily precluded . 
in 1997 , six years after theresa 's tragic collapse , michael elected to initiate an action to withdraw artificial life support from theresa . 
more than a year later , in may of 1998 , the first petition to discontinue life support was entered . 
the court appointed richard pearse , esq. , to serve as guardian ad litem to review the request for withdrawal , a standard procedure . 
mr. pearse 's report , submitted to the court on 20 december 1998 contains what appear to be objective and challenging findings . 
his review of the clinical record confirmed that theresa 's condition was that of a diagnosed persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement . 
mr. pearse 's investigation concluded that the statements of mrs. schindler , theresa 's mother , indicated that theresa displayed special responses , mostly to her , but that these were not observed or documented . 
mr. pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the schindlers and michael schiavo . 
he concludes that michael schiavo 's testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support -- a conversation he had with his wife , theresa , was not clear and convincing , and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in theresa 's trust account following her death affected michael and the schindlers -- but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on michael 's decision to discontinue artificial life support . 
at the time of mr. pearse 's report , more than $ 700 , 000 remained in the guardianship estate . 
mr. pearse concludes that michael 's hearsay testimony about theresa 's intent is `` necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law ... .. '' and `` ... .. 
by the chronology of this case ... .. '' , specifically referencing michael 's change in position relative to maintaining theresa following the malpractice award . 
mr. pearse recommended that the petition for removal of the feeding tube be denied , or in the alternative , if the court found the evidence to be clear and convincing , the feeding tube should be withdrawn . 
mr. pearse also recommended that a guardian ad litem continue to serve in all subsequent proceedings . 
in response to mr. pearse 's report , michael schiavo filed a suggestion of bias against mr. pearse . 
this document notes that mr. pearse failed to mention in his report that michael schiavo had earlier , formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate . 
the criticism continues to note that mr. pearse 's concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at michael , not at the schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial the suggestion of bias challenges premises and findings of mr. pearse , establishing a well pleaded case for bias . 
in february of 1999 , mr. pearse tendered his petition for additional authority or discharge . 
he was discharged in june of 1999 and no new guardian ad litem was named . 
actions by the schindlers to remove michael as guardian and to block the petition to remove artificial life support took on a frenetic quality at this juncture . 
more external parties on both sides made appearances as potential interveners . 
on 11 february 2000 , consequent to hearings and the presentation of competent evidence , judge greer ordered the removal of theresa 's artificial life support . 
the schindlers aggressively sought means by which to stop the removal of theresa 's feeding tube . 
most of the motions in these efforts were denied , but not without apparent careful and detailed review by the court , often involving hearings at which considerable latitude was afforded the schindlers in their efforts to proffer testimony and admit evidence . 
the motion and hearing process continued through 2000 . 
then the schindlers sought to introduce new evidence that was believed to be of a sufficiently substantial nature as to change the court 's decision regarding the removal of the feeding tube . 
the hearings and testimony before the trial court leading to the decision to discontinue artificial life support included admitted hearsay from theresa 's brother-in-law ( michael schiavo 's brother ) and his wife ( michael schiavo 's sister-in-law ) along with testimony from michael . 
the testimony of these parties referenced specific conversations in which theresa commented about her desire never to be placed on artificial life support . 
the testimony reflected conversations at or proximate to funerals of close family members who had been on artificial life support . 
the context and content of the testimony , while hearsay , was deemed credible and consistent and was used by the court as a supporting basis for its decision to discontinue artificial life support . 
the schindlers ' new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on michael schiavo 's role as guardian . 
it related to his personal romantic life , the fact that he had relationships with other women , that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for theresa , that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account , and that he was no longer competent to represent theresa 's best interests . 
testimony provided by members of the schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that theresa remain alive . 
throughout the course of the litigation , deposition and trial testimony by members of the schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep theresa alive at any and all costs . 
nearly gruesome examples were given , eliciting agreement by family members that in the event theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs , they would agree to amputate each limb , and would then , were she to be diagnosed with heart disease , perform open heart surgery . 
there was additional , difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of theresa , the parents still derived joy from having her alive , even if theresa might not be at all aware of her environment the court denied the schindlers ' motions to remove the guardian , allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and in some instances , not relevant . 
it set a date for the artificial life support to be discontinued , as of 24 april 2001 . 
the decision was appealed to the florida 2nd district court of appeals ( dca ) , and was affirmed in january 2001 . 
the requested appeal to the florida supreme court was denied on 23 april 2001 , one day before the scheduled removal of theresa 's feeding tube . 
on 24 april 2001 , theresa schiavo 's artificial feeding tube was clamped , and she ceased receiving nutrition and hydration . 
under normal circumstances , theresa would die naturally within a week to ten days . 
two days after the clamping of theresa 's feeding tube , the schindlers filed a civil action in their capacity as `` natural guardians '' for theresa . 
the trial court , in emergency review , granted a temporary injunction and the tube was unclamped . 
michael schiavo filed an emergency motion to vacate the injunction . 
this led to the second review and appeal to the 2nd dca . 
the 2nd dca found that the intention of florida statute 765 with respect to matters such as theresa 's , is to help expedite proceedings of the court when decisions have been made by the bona fide guardian . 
the 2nd dca also noted that the court had acted independently as proxy decision maker regarding the removal of artificial life support . 
in october 2001 , the 2nd dca concluded that the schindlers `` have presented no credible evidence suggesting new treatment can restore mrs. schiavo. '' the injunction was lifted and plans moved forward to discontinue artificial nutrition . 
fresh and exhaustive motions regarding new evidence were again crafted and proffered to the trial court by the schindlers resulting in a lengthy hearing . 
affidavits from medical doctors and others alleged that theresa 's condition could be improved . 
in particular , the sworn statement of a single , osteopathic physician , dr . 
webber , claimed that he could improve theresa 's condition and had done so in like and similar cases . 
the quality of evidence in this affidavit was marginal , but the court allowed it to create a colorable entitlement to additional medical review . 
the case was remanded to the trial court with the charge that each side would select two expert physicians ( a neurologist or a neurosurgeon , according to the court ) and agree between them regarding a fifth , and if they could not agree on the fifth , the court would select it . 
by may of 2002 , the physicians were selected by both sides , but no agreement could be reached about a fifth , so the court selected one . 
curiously and surprisingly , dr . 
webber , who had served as the basis for this entire process at the 2nd dca , did not participate in the exams or the procedure . 
each of the physicians was afforded access to theresa for the purpose of conducting a thorough examination . 
video tape recordings were made of some of the examinations along with segments in which family members interacted with theresa . 
the physicians were deposed and proffered testimony regarding their findings . 
written reports of the examinations were prepared by all five physicians , and a very detailed hearing was held in october of 2002 . 
the clinical evidence presented by the five physicians reflected their examinations and reviews of the medical records . 
four of the physicians were board certified in neurology , as suggested by the court , and one physician was board certified in radiology and hyperbaric medicine . 
all of the physicians had excellent pedigrees of medical training . 
the scientific quality , value and relevance of the testimony varied . 
the two neurologists testifying for michael schiavo provided strong , academically based , and scientifically supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and convincing by the court . 
of the two physicians testifying for the schindlers , only one was a neurologist , the other was a radiologist/hyperbaric physician . 
the testimony of the schindler 's physicians was substantially anecdotal , and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing . 
the fifth physician , chosen by the court because the two parties could not agree , presented scientifically grounded , academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be clear and convincing by the court . 
following exhaustive testimony and the viewing of video tapes , the trial court concluded that no substantial evidence had been presented to indicate any promising treatment that might improve theresa 's cognition . 
the court sought to glean scientific , case , researchbased foundations for the contentions of the schindler 's physician experts , but received principally anecdotal information . 
evidence presented by michael schiavo 's two physicians and the fifth physician selected by the court was reasonably deemed clear and convincing in support of theresa being in a persistent vegetative state with no hope for improvement . 
simultaneous appeals of this decision and renewed actions to remove michael schiavo as guardian were initiated based upon new evidence . 
the june 2003 appeal to the 2nd dca was schiavo iv . 
the 2nd dca panel of judges engaged in what approximated a de novo review of all of the facts , testimony and video tapes presented at trial . 
the appellate court affirmed the trial court 's ruling and its conclusions , and in addition , ordered the trial court to set a hearing date for removal of the artificial life support . 
the trial court set 15 october 2003 as the date for the removal of theresa 's artificial nutrition tube . 
the schindler 's renewed efforts to remove michael schiavo as guardian , and to disqualify judges , were not successful . 
multiple amicus briefs and affidavits from parties supporting the schindlers were submitted through the schindler 's actions and in some instances , independently to the court . 
by mid 2003 , the landscape and texture of theresa schiavo 's case underwent profound changes . 
national media coverage , active involvement by groups advocating right to life , and the attention of the governor 's office and the florida legislature , catapulted theresa 's case into a different dimension . 
the schindlers , acting on behalf of theresa , filed a motion in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction to stay the removal of the artificial life support from theresa , scheduled to occur on 15 october 2003 . 
on 6 october 2003 , florida governor jeb bush filed an amicus brief in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction . 
the brief argues that removal of artificial nutrition , resulting in death , should be avoided if that person can take oral nutrition and hydration . 
the governor predicates his memorandum on the pivotal question as to whether theresa could ingest food and water on her own . 
that theresa is in a diagnosed , persistent vegetative state is explicitly recognized . 
on 15 october 2003 , theresa maria schiavo 's artificial feeding tube was disconnected , for the second time . 
the florida legislature , in special session , passed hb 35 e on 21 october 2003 , authorizing the governor to stay the disconnection of the artificial feeding tube and required , among other things , the appointment of a guardian ad litem to produce this report . 
on that same day , 21 october 2003 , the artificial feeding tube was re-inserted per the stay ordered by governor bush . 
other suits and actions were initiated immediately the governor became a named party in the matters involving theresa schiavo . 
i just wanted to correct some of those facts for the record , mr. speaker . 
the circumstances that bring us here today are horribly tragic . 
no matter where you may fall on this issue , the details of terri 's case are heart-wrenching . 
no one in this chamber questions the pain , heartache , and personal struggles that every member of ms. schiavo 's family has had to deal with over the last 15 years . 
but heartbreaking decisions like this are deeply intimate , personal , and private matters ; and the federal government and this body , in particular , should not inject itself into the middle of this private family matter . 
this very personal matter should not be politicized as it is being here today . 
just a few hours ago , i had an opportunity to sit down with ms. schiavo 's brother , bobby schindler . 
i know that he speaks with great sincerity as i told him about his sister . 
indeed , it is important to emphasize that this type of gut-wrenching , angst-ridden decision happens every day across the country among families dealing with the tragic circumstances of a loved one . 
and i know the pain that this causes families only too well because it happened in my own family not even 5 weeks ago . 
my husband 's family had to make the identical decision to withdraw sustenance to disconnect the feeding tube of my husband 's aunt . 
her children came together to make that very difficult decision , and no one in my family felt it was essential that i or any other member of congress file legislation to stop it . 
this type of decision happens every single day to thousands of families across america . 
where will we stop if we allow this to go forward ? 
today will be terri schiavo . 
tomorrow it will be someone 's brother or a constituent 's uncle or next week a family member , god forbid , of one of my colleagues or another constituent . 
do we really want to set the precedent of this great body , the united states congress , to insert ourselves in the middle of families ' private matters all across america ? 
if we do this , we will end up throwing end-of-life decisions into utter and complete chaos ; and we can not and should not do that . 
we are members of congress . 
we are not doctors . 
we are not medical experts . 
we are not bio-ethicists . 
we are members of congress . 
when i ran for congress , i did not ask my constituents for the right to insert myself in their private , personal families decisions ; and they do not want me to make those for them . 
they do not want you to make those for them either . 
that is the bottom line . 
i can not get into the kind of questions that we are getting into being asked here because we do not know . 
i have never met michael schiavo or terri schiavo or the schindlers and the vast majority of people in this body have not either . 
we do not have the expertise or the facts in enough detail to get into these kinds of decisions and make decisions on these kind of cases . 
we are not god and we are not terri schiavo 's husband , sister , brother , uncle or relation . 
we are members of congress . 
we make laws and we uphold the law and we swore to uphold and protect the constitution and we are thumbing our noses at the constitution if we do this here tonight . 
now , i have heard a lot of things said about this legislation and about the very proceeding that we are engaging in this evening . 
i have heard accusations that because this body is debating this legislation , we are threatening somehow the life of ms. schiavo . 
i think it is really important to note that this is a legislative body created by our forefathers for the express purpose of deliberations and representation . 
the accusation that because we have 3 hours of debate on an unprecedented piece of legislation that seeks to insert the federal government in between a family while overruling state courts and circumventing the constitution , that is an outrageous accusation and not worthy of a representative elected to craft and debate legislation . 
i notice today that president bush has returned from crawford hoping to sign this legislation if it is passed by congress . 
i think it is important to note that president bush when he was governor of texas in 1999 signed a texas law that is on the books today that was just used a few days ago to allow a hospital to withdraw , over the parents ' objections , the life support of a 6-month-old boy , over the parents ' objections . 
president bush signed a law called the texas advanced directives act , when he was governor of texas . 
this law , that has been used several times and as recently as a few days ago , liberalized the situations under which a person in texas can avoid artificial life support . 
under it , life support can be withheld or withdrawn if you have an irreversible condition in texas from which you are expected to eventually pass away . 
indeed , this law , signed by then governor bush , allows doctors to remove a patient from life support if the hospital 's ethics committee agrees , even over the objections of a family member , only allowing the family 10 days to find another facility that might accept the patient , barring any state judicial intervention . 
it appears that president bush felt , as governor , that there was a point at which , when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient , that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made , even over the objections of family members . 
that was a law that president bush did not just allow to become law without his signature , he came back from a campaign trip to sign it . 
there is an obvious conflict here between the president 's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was governor of texas , so i thought that was an important conflict that should be raised here this evening in our discussion . 
let me just close my remarks by reiterating there is no room for the federal government in this most personal of private angst-ridden family matters , in which a family has to make the most personal of decisions when dealing with the course of care of a loved one . 
we should not politicize this very personal family matter . 
ms. schiavo made it clear , as opposed to what the gentleman from wisconsin said , that she would not have wished to remain in a persistent vegetative state , and the guardian ad litem report well documents that . 
in fact , it documents it to such a degree that it cites the specific conversations referenced by her family members when she attended funerals of loved ones who were in similar situations when they had life support removed ; and she had stated that if , god forbid , she was ever in this situation , that she would not have wished to remain on life support . 
the court heard that testimony not from terri schiavo 's husband , not from her parents , but from other family members and friends who heard her say these things . 
they said that there was enough evidence to render the belief that she had made those statements . 
she made it clear that she wished not to remain in a persistent vegetative state , which she is in today . 
and this u.s. government should not step in to circumvent the wishes of one dying woman . 
