Reply #1: House of Representatives - March 20, 2005 [View All]

[paineinthearse]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:28:./temp/~r1096glnu5:e183901:

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership tonight.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself from now on if this precedent is approved this evening. By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of the separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and we will be taking on the role, as we have done during this debate, of judge, of doctor, of priest, of parent, or spouse.

By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a State judge and sends it to a single preselected Federal court, we will forego any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian democracy as envisioned by the Founders and the States as ``laboratories of democracy,'' as articulated by Justice Brandeis, will lie in tatters.

By passing this legislation in a complete absence of hearings, committee markups, no amendments, in complete violation of what we once called ``regular order,'' we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the majority party.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle and morals and values. But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that ``this is a great political issue'' and that by passing this bill ``the pro-life base will be excited''?

If the President of the United States really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, then why did he sign a bill as Governor in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection?



If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the President tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid, a virtual lifeline for health care for millions of our citizens?

When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute, which we should not be doing. Last year, the majority passed two bills stripping the Federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from State courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today, we are sending a case from State courts to the Federal courts, even though it is already the most extensively litigated right-to-die case in the history of the United States.

There is only one principle at stake here: manipulating the court system to achieve predetermined, substantive outcomes. By passing this bill, it should be obvious to many that we are no longer a Nation of laws, but have been reduced to a Nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it does not suit our needs. By passing this law, we diminish our Nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators.

Do not let this bill pass.