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 .  