F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the record. There have been statements made on the actions of then-Governor George W. Bush of Texas. I would like to correct the record on this. In 1997, then-Governor Bush vetoed an advanced directives bill precisely because it would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of lifesaving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the lifesaving treatment had been defeated. With no legal protections at all under Texas law, and ongoing programs in Texas hospitals denying treatment with no opportunity to even seek transfer, pro-life groups entered into negotiations with medical groups that finally resulted in the bill that, one, formalized more protections for in-hospital review; two, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer; and, three, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods of time to accomplish transfer. That is what the Governor signed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate intently; and the complaints that I have heard from people who are opposed to this bill, feelings that are sincerely held and emotions that are sincerely held is why are we picking on this one case, the case of Terri Schiavo? That was not my desire in the beginning, and it was not the desire of the entire House of Representatives either. Wednesday night the House passed H.R. 1332, which was a bill which I introduced that applied to everybody who is in an incapacitated state, a major protection for people who are disabled. Everybody who is disabled could get a Federal review of their Federal constitutional and legal rights, including that under the Americans With Disability Act. We had a debate on the floor, and it passed unanimously. And there was a move in the other body to bring it up, and it was objected to; and that is why this issue was not resolved with a general law of general application. I hope we revisit that issue some time in the future so that we do not have to deal with a specific case again. But we are here because we could not get H.R. 1332 passed in the other body. I also think this is an issue of priorities, priorities of what we put a higher priority on in terms of how we provide food and nourishment to living human beings. In Florida they have a statute number 828.12 that says if you do not feed an animal you can go to jail for a year and be fined $5,000. So in Florida an animal has a higher right than this woman, and that is a wrong priority, and this bill attempts to correct it. No Federal court has agreed to hear Terri Schiavo's Federal claims while her State court remedies were not yet exhausted. Now that her State courts remedies are exhausted, she has only two means of obtaining Federal court review under current law. The first means is in the lower Federal court through the habeas corpus statute, and the second is by petitioning the Supreme Court directly. First she can try to obtain habeas relief under the current Federal law. On Friday she was denied that relief by the Florida Federal District Court. That denial has been appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which requested the briefs of her husband's lawyers by seven o'clock tonight. No one knows when the 11th circuit will make a final decision, and they may yet deny her habeas relief. So time is of the essence. In any case, even if she is granted a habeas review of her case, she faces a major obstacle in that the Federal habeas corpus statute essentially requires the Federal court to defer to the State court's determination regarding the facts of this case. So even if the habeas petition is granted, the deck is stacked against her. Second, Terri Schiavo's lawyers can try to obtain relief in the Supreme Court. So far her lawyers have petitioned for and been denied an emergency hearing. Her lawyers are currently pursuing an ordinary appeal directly to the Supreme Court, but that appeal process will extend for weeks at least; and in any case, her appeal will likely be denied because the Supreme Court will generally not take a case without a lower Federal court's first establishing a record. The bottom line is that first, the 11th circuit may yet deny Terri Schiavo her habeas petition. Second, even if they granted it, she would likely lose her case under the very difficult procedural hurdles any habeas petitioner faces. Third, she has already been denied an emergency review by the Supreme Court. And, fourth, the ordinary review process in the Supreme Court will take far too long. She will probably die in the interim. Consequently, Terri Schiavo's only hope is the current bill which will guarantee a fresh review of her case in the lower Federal court immediately, without any deference to State court determination and with the lower Federal court issuing a stay of the State court order until it can determine the Federal claims the court is required to hear under this bill on its merits. That is what Terri Schiavo needs, and that is what this bill will get her, and that is why it should pass.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, my friend from Massachusetts said, in a habeas corpus bill, ``I want judicial review in a reasonable way. I want people who may have had their rights interfered with to be able to sue in reasonable fora.'' That is what this bill does. He was right then. I think this bill is right now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to complete the codification of title 46, United States Code, ``Shipping'', as positive law. This bill is an updated version of H.R. 4319 which was introduced in the 108th Congress. This bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives in accordance with 2 U.S.C. 285b(1). That Office received comments on the predecessor bill and made appropriate changes which are reflected in this bill. Questions about this bill should be addressed to Richard B. Simpson, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. The telephone number is 202-226-9059. Additional information can be found on the Law Revision Counsel website at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod/t46.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005, which I introduced today with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). Madam Speaker, the Florida courts are poised to determine that Terri Schiavo will have her feeding tube removed on Friday. This legislation will protect Ms. Schiavo from starving to death by allowing her to have a Federal court consider her case anew, unrestricted by the findings of the State court. H.R. 1332 authorizes the removal of cases in State court to U.S. Federal court to vindicate the Federal rights of incapacitated persons under the United States Constitution or any Federal law. Such proceedings would be authorized after an incapacitated person has exhausted available State remedies and the relevant papers must be filed in Federal court within 30 days after the exhaustion of available State remedies. What is going on in Florida regarding Terri Schiavo is nothing short of inhumane. She is facing what amounts to a death sentence, ensuring that she will slowly starve to death over a matter of weeks. Terri Schiavo, a woman who smiles and cries and who is not on a respirator or any other 24-hour-a-day medical equipment, has committed no crime; and she has done nothing wrong. Yet the Florida courts seem bent on setting an extremely dangerous precedent by saying that we must stop feeding someone who cannot feed herself. Who is next? The disabled or those late in life? This legislation is humane and the right thing, not only to protect Terri Schiavo, but also to reinforce the law's commitment to justice and compassion for all, even the most vulnerable. The bill applies to anyone who might find themselves in Terri Schiavo's situation, namely, those who are in an incapacitated state and facing a court order authorizing ``the withdrawal or withholding of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the incapacitated person's life.'' The bill applies only to incapacitated persons, not to convicted criminals or those facing the death penalty, for example. Furthermore, it applies only to those who have not executed in advance a written directive, commonly known as a living will, that clearly authorizes the withholding or withdrawal of food, water, and medical treatment in the event the person becomes incapacitated. What Terri Schiavo and all disabled people deserve in contested cases is for justice to tilt toward life. When a person's intentions regarding whether to receive lifesaving treatment are unclear, the clear choice is to provide an innocent person with the opportunity to have a Federal court provide a ``double-check'' for life under Federal law, unencumbered by the decisions of a State court. A measure of a Nation's commitment to innocent life is measured in its laws by the extent to which the laws go to save it. This bill takes that extra step, not just for Terri Schiavo but for all of us. And I urge every Member of this House to take that step with me and overwhelmingly pass this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the principal cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1332, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1332) to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated persons, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has said that the Private Relief Bill is the way to go rather than the legislation that is before us. If the Private Relief Bill were introduced or came over from the Senate, Terri Schiavo would be dead before we could consider it. I would draw the Members' attention to rule XIII clause 1(a)(3) of the rules of the House of Representatives that says that the Private Calendar is provided in clause 5 of rule XV to which shall be referred all private bills and all private resolutions. There is no exception to that. And rule XV clause 5 says that the private calendar shall be called only on the first Tuesday of every month, and at the Speaker's discretion, in addition, the third Tuesday of the month. Furthermore, clause 5 of rule XV says that the Speaker may not entertain a reservation of the right to object to the consideration of the bill or resolution under this clause. That means that private bills go through without debate. And furthermore, under the clause that I have just cited, two Members may object to the private bill in which case it is recommitted to the committee. So if only two Members are opposed to a private bill and come to the floor and object, that kills it once and for all. Now, those are the procedural hurdles against the private bill coming up. And that is why the only way to deal with this issue in a timely manner is through public legislation such as the bill that is currently under consideration. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would just refer the membership to the text of the bill on the top of page 3, which says, and I read it, ``In hearing and determining a claim or cause of action removed under this section, the court shall only consider whether authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the incapacitated person's life constitutes a deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.'' Now, in every civil rights lawsuit that was removed to Federal court, the Federal court applied privileges and immunities and protections provided by the Constitution of the United States or Federal law, and all this bill does is to allow the same type of review on whether someone's Federal rights are deprived by action of the State court in the Federal court. If we did not do this in the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, this country would be a lot different place and a lot worse place than it is today. It was Federal judges that applied Federal law in those cases, and if it was good enough to apply them in the civil rights cases of the 1960s, why is it not good enough to deprive a person who is incapacitated the same type of Federal judicial review on their Federal rights in a Federal court? We should not deprive an incapacitated person of a judicial review in a Federal court of their Federal civil rights, and that is why this bill ought to pass. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) that this is a complicated bill, and it is an unusual procedure that we are bringing this matter before the House of Representatives tonight. However, if we do not deal with this issue, by the time we get around to having hearings and markups and debates and perhaps a conference committee this woman will have died, and that is why I think it shows the compassion of this House of Representatives and those who are supporting this bill to allow a Federal court to view whether or not this woman's civil rights, secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, have been violated. I think she is entitled to have that kind of a Federal review before a final decision is made on whether to allow her to starve to death or to die of dehydration, and that is why we are here tonight. It shows that the Congress can be compassionate, and it shows that we can deal with issues promptly, rather than saying oops, maybe something could have been done in the Federal court in a review of her Federal civil rights, but it is too late because she passed away. Please pass the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Conyers, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Berman, and I would like to commend and thank Alec French for his tremendous contribution as Minority Counsel to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. During his five years of service to the Subcommittee, Alec was well-liked by the Members and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We are sad to see him leave our staff. Without our system of copyright, trademark, and patent protection for innovations, consumers would not be able to enjoy movies, music, or new technology. Over the last five years, Alec was an invaluable member of our team and he played a crucial role in helping us to protect creative works and to establish the parameters of intellectual property rights. At the same time, Alec made sure that we listened to the needs of all parties involved, namely copyright owners and copyright users, so that decisions of policy were balanced appropriately. Because of Alec's service, Congress was able to pass into law several bills on these issues, including the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, the Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act of 2004, and the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002. He also shepherded numerous bills that passed the House, including the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004, the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004, Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001, Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002, Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2001, and Madrid Protocol Implementation Act. Alec also was instrumental in working with our third branch of the government, the Judiciary. He helped protect the privacy of judges and their staffs, made sure that judges were compensated fairly, and ensured that the courts would have the resources they need to continue serving the American public. We thank Alec for his exceptional service to Congress and wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points. First, under the 60-day time frame proposed by the gentlewoman's amendment, the time under the War Powers Act for Congress to make a decision following an attack will have expired and, consequently, less than the full House will make the important decisions relative to under what circumstances American troops will be committed overseas. Under the 49-day time limit, that problem will not exist because the House will be reconstituted and repopulated before the War Powers Act limitation expires. Secondly, the purpose of this bill is to require special elections to be held in those States with slower special election processes, to be held as quickly as possible within the 49-day period. The gentlewoman from California has read parts of the letter that Mr. Kennedy, who is the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Elections Board has written. I would respond to that simply by saying if Virginia repopulates the House, or its delegation to the House within 12 days and it takes at least 62 days for Wisconsin to do so, 50 days will elapse, or almost 2 months will elapse while Wisconsin has either a reduced or no delegation in the House, but the House keeps on legislating. And that is not fair to the people of my State, and it is not fair to the people of the other States, including the gentlewoman from California's own State that have relatively slow special election procedures. So that is why this bill is here, is to speed up the process by which States can fill up their delegations to the House so that they will be fully represented when important decisions are made. And should this bill go down and the slow States continue to be really slow, then their delegations will either be nonexistent or have a relatively few number of Members. Now, the final point I would like to make is that we have heard everybody who is against this bill say that this is too fast and too slow. Well, to speed up the process of repopulating the House, quicker than when special elections can be held, will require a constitutional amendment. We did debate a constitutional amendment and it was defeated by a vote of 63 ayes to 350-plus noes. This House is firmly on record against an appointment procedure however it is done. So now we have to figure out how to make the special election procedure occur as quickly as possible and yet maintain fairness. The 49 days required under this bill is the way to do it to get people here to make important decisions under the War Powers Act. Sixty days or a longer period of time simply will not cut it. Defeat the amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. The membership has been preparing for the debate on this bill with the amendment made in order under the rule. The gentlewoman now wants to submit a new amendment. I do not think that is fair to the membership who have prepared debate on the bill; so the answer is no.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to defeat this amendment, just as it did last year when the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) brought it up. The issue is very simple. We want elections. Her amendment wants lawsuits. The way she has phrased her amendment for the lawsuits is that anybody can sue, not just the Governor, to determine whether or not a vacancy actually exists. And also, there is an appeals process in the gentlewoman's amendment that would allow the appeals to be dragged out indefinitely. When there is a catastrophe that wipes out a significant number of Members of the House, it is in the interest of the public to fill those vacancies as quickly as possible through a fair election. We should not allow anybody to tie up an election call in the courts forever and ever and ever simply because their candidate might not be in a proper position to win the election. So let us have the people decide when these vacancies will be filled and who will fill them. Let us not allow endless litigation at a time of national catastrophe. Elections can bring people together. They will result in new Representatives coming with mandates rather than having the frustration of lawsuits that go on interminably. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the fatal flaw in this amendment is it does not extend the 49 days under which the election is required to be held under the provisions of this bill. So the more time we spend in court, the less time the election officials have to be able to organize the election, print the ballots, mail the ballots to absentee voters at home and overseas and get them back in time to be counted. We have heard an awful lot saying, well, the time frame is just too compact in order to run a fair election. What the gentlewoman's amendment does is that it makes it more compact because every day and every week that is spent tied up in the courts is going to be that much less time for the election machinery to operate. This is a question very simply of lawsuits versus elections. If you want more lawsuits, vote yes. If you want a quicker and fairer election, vote no. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.