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 .  