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 . 
