While our Federalist structure reserves broad authority to States, America's federal courts have played a historic role in defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, including the disadvantaged, disabled, and dispossessed. Among the God- given gifts protected by the Constitution, no right is more sacred than the right to life.

The legislation we consider today will ensure that Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to life will be given the federal court review that her situation demands. Unlike the legislation passed by the Senate a day after House passage of H.R. 1332, the legislation received from the Senate today is not a private bill. Also, and of critical importance, S. 686 does not contain a provision that might have authorized a federal court to deny desperately needed nutritional support to Terri Schiavo during the pendency of her claim.

Unlike earlier Senate legislation, S. 686 also contains a bicameral commitment that Congress will examine the status of legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are unable to make decisions concerning the provision or withdrawal of life- sustaining treatment. Broad consideration of this issue is necessary to ensure that similarly situated individuals are accorded the equal protection under law that is both a fundamental constitutional right and an indispensable ingredient of justice.

It is important to note that this legislation also does not create a new cause of action. Rather, it merely provides de novo federal court review of 'alleged violation(s)' of Terri Schiavo's rights 'under the Constitution or laws of the United States.' Furthermore, S. 686, makes clear that 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.'

In addition, the legislation does not reopen or direct the reopening of a final judgment - it merely ensures an opportunity for the review of any violations of Terri Schiavo's federal and constitutional rights in federal court. As a result, the legislation is clearly consistent with both the separation of powers envisioned by our Founders and the weight of judicial precedent on point. As the Supreme Court held in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms, 'While legislatures usually act through laws of general applicability, that is by no means their only legitimate mode of action.'

Finally, S. 686 presents no problems regarding retrospective application. As the Supreme Court held in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 'A statute does not operate 'retrospectively' merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's enactment.' Rather, the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment. S. 686 does not attach any new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment, it merely 'changes the tribunal that is to hear the case' by providing federal court jurisdiction to review alleged violations of Terri Schiavo's federal and constitutional rights.

There has been a lot of discussion about what this bill actually does. Let me explain: simply put, it allows Terri’s case to be heard in a federal court. This legislation permits a federal district judge to consider a claim on behalf of Terri for alleged violations of Constitutional rights or federal laws relating to the withholding of food, water or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

This bill guarantees a process to help Terri, but does not guarantee a particular outcome. Once a new case is filed, a federal district judge can issue a stay at any time, 24 hours a day. A stay would allow Terri to be fed once again. The judge has discretion on this decision. However, I would expect that a federal judge would grant a stay under these circumstances because Terri would need to live in order for the court to consider the case.

If a new suit goes forward, the federal judge must conduct what’s called “de novo” review of the case. De novo review means the judge must look at the case anew. The judge need not rely on or defer to the decisions of previous judges. The judge also may make new findings of fact. Practically, this means that in a new case, the judge can reevaluate and reassess Terri’s medical condition.

Last night, as you know, House and Senate negotiators reached a bipartisan, bicameral compromise proposal to provide Terri Schiavo a clear and appropriate avenue to have her case heard in federal court. The bill we’re working on has majority support in the House and the Senate, and it is going to pass. The only question is when. The few, objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today, and we’re working now to resolve this in time for her to get some food and water tonight.

Mrs. Schiavo’s condition, I believe, has been at times misrepresented by the media, but far more often has simply gone unreported all together. Terri Schiavo is not on a respirator; she can breathe on her own. Terri Schiavo is not brain-dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life-support.

She’s not being ‘kept alive’; she is alive. It won’t take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo; it will only take the medical care and therapy that all patients deserve. Mrs. Schiavo is not being denied heroic measures; she’s being denied basic, basic, basic medical and personal care.

“The legal issues, I grant everyone, are complicated, but the moral ones are not. What will it hurt to have a federal judge take a fresh look at all this evidence and apply it against 15 years’ worth of advances in medical technology? We have a bill – the Palm Sunday compromise – that will give her that chance. It is bipartisan and bicameral and has overwhelming support in both houses. It will eventually pass. We just hope the objectors let us vote on it before it’s too late.

The case of Terri Schiavo is a sad and tragic situation. Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues in this intensely personal family matter. The actions of the majority in attempting to pass constitutionally-dubious legislation are highly irregular and an improper use of legislative authority.

Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but, having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God.

This rush to exploit a personal tragedy is not fair to those involved and will not create good policy.

Shortly, we will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. This action will allow the Senate to come back into session at a moment’s notice to receive the Terri Schiavo bill from the House of Representatives. The Senate will remain here throughout the afternoon and late into the evening as necessary to act immediately once its ready. Time is of the essence. Terri Schiavo is being denied life-saving nutrition this very moment.

Let me summarize again for everyone what the agreed upon legislation does. Under this legislation, Terri Schiavo will have another chance. She will have another opportunity to live. The bill allows Terri’s case to be heard in federal court. More specifically, it allows a federal district judge to consider a claim on behalf of Terri Schiavo for alleged violations of Constitutional rights or federal laws relating to the withholding of food, water or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.