mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , federal courts have always reviewed whether or not a person 's federal constitutional or legal rights have been violated , and that is all this bill does .  it gives a federal court the opportunity to review the federal questions that are presented here .  now , if we accepted the position that has been made by the opponents of this legislation , we would not have had a civil rights revolution in this country if rural courts in the south decided federal questions that were opposed by those who were petitioning to have their civil rights protected .  that required federal judicial action .  and this country is better because of that federal judicial action .  that is all that is being proposed here today , and that is why the bill ought to pass .  now , secondly , i would like to correct some of the representations my colleague from florida has made .  terri schiavo is not on life support .  she is not on a ventilator .  she is not on any kind of artificial heart pump .  all she has is a feeding tube , or had a feeding tube until it was removed 2 days ago , and that is not life support .  that is simply requiring somebody to have the nutrition and the hydration they need as a living human being .  to starve someone to death or to have them die of dehydration slowly is one of the most cruel and inhumane ways to die , and what this bill does is it requires the reinsertion of the feeding tube for so long as it takes for a federal court to determine whether or not her federal constitutional or statutory rights are violated .  and that is reasonable , because she should not be allowed to die while the courts are determining what her legal rights are and whether anybody has violated them .  