CNN Crossfire - Transcript

CNN Crossfire - Transcript
03/21/05

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

NOVAK: Who should decide whether Terri Schiavo will have a feeding tube or be sentenced to death by starvation?

Joining us today to debate that issue, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, and Congressman David Dreier, Republican of California, the powerful chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

REP. DAVID DREIER ®, CALIFORNIA: Great to see you all.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Good to be here.

(APPLAUSE)

DREIER: Ralph sounds like a presidential candidate.

NOVAK: Yes.

DREIER: You sound like a presidential candidate, Ralph.

(LAUGHTER)

NOVAK: Yes.

OK. Mr. Van Hollen, there was a statement made in the floor debate by the congressman, one congressman from Florida who is actually an M.D. Let's listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID WELDON ®, FLORIDA: The reason they feel that way is, she responds to them when you go in the room. She doesn't lie there like a piece of meat. When you lean forward and say, hello, Terri, she brightens up and she looks at them like a human being.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: That's Dave Weldon. He's a Republican congressman and a doctor. He says this is a-this is a person who is not-is not a vegetable. Isn't-can't-don't have you to take that into consideration?

VAN HOLLEN: The question here is, who decides? And I just think it's wrong for 435 members of Congress to substitute their judgment on this issue.

He hasn't seen her up close in the hospital. You've had months and years of legal proceedings, where this has been reviewed by the court, where they've had independent doctors, court-appointed doctors, the guardian for Terri who was appointed by the court, looking at the facts. The courts have weighed the facts with one question in mind. What would Terri Schiavo have decided in this case?

And the conclusion of the courts is, Terri Schiavo would not want to continue on in a persistent vegetative state.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: And what Congress is doing is coming in at the 24th- hour, saying we know better than all the people who have spent years looking at the facts and we're going to substitute our judgment for what had been a very personal decision.

NOVAK: Congressman, there is-she is-there's nobody who can say what her view is, because she's-she's unable to articulate.

But there's no question that her parents think she's able to communicate, although not able to say words and articulate the words. Don't have you a problem of conscience that, if you were to vote no-and you did vote no-and that had carried, you would be sentencing a person to death?

VAN HOLLEN: Look, Bob, I think the issue here is very clear. And it's a very difficult and tragic case. The question is, what would Terri Schiavo have decided? That's what the courts looked at for-this whole period of time. It's been up and down the Florida court system to see whether she would have wanted to continue on in a vegetative state.

NOVAK: Well, you didn't answer-you didn't answer my question.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: Well, no, because the doctor-no, because it's not for me to decide. It's for the people...

DREIER: You know, I...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: It's for-it's not for me to render a judgment or for my colleague here to render a judgment.

The whole process is designed to get at the facts.

DREIER: Chris, I totally concur with your initial assertion, that we should not be the ones to decide.

We are not trying to be the ones to decide. What we did in the middle of the night was not decide. All we did was say that there should in fact be, in federal court, an opportunity for these parent, who seem to get a smile on her face and an enthusiastic look in her eye when they go into that room, we just want to create an opportunity for a federal court to make that determination as to whether...

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: Let me interject. Let me interject here. Taking off from what you said, Congressman Dreier, are you prepared to do one of two things? Are you prepared to press for legislation every time a similar case to Terri Schiavo comes up? Or are you prepared to press for omnibus legislation that will give all future Terri Schiavos and their family's situation the right to go from state to federal court? In other words, are you going to go ad hoc from now on or omnibus?

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: OK, I'll answer both of your questions.

And let me say, I happen to believe that what we should do is, we should be allowing a federal court in this instance to make a decision. One of the things that we've learned from this, Ralph, is very clear. Every single person should have a living will, so that no one is...

NADER: Wait a minute. You're dodging the question.

DREIER: No, no, I'm not dodging the question. What I'm telling you is that I want to create a scenario where it's not going to be necessary, Ralph.

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: Let me finish here. What are you going to-answer. What are you going to do in future...

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: Could we tell the audience that they should have a living will?

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: Fine. Fine. All, have living wills.

DREIER: Good. OK. Thank you. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: What are you going to do-what are you going to do-let's-time is running short, really. Don't filibuster, please. One, if 20 more Terri Schiavos comes, same situation, are you willing to pass 20 more bills to give them...

DREIER: I hope that we don't have to. The answer is, I hope we don't have to.

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: That's not-I'm asking, yes or no?

DREIER: The answer is, no, I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that, OK? NADER: All right. So, this is a single case, right?

DREIER: Well...

NADER: All right. Now, would you pass omnibus legislation to let people go from state to federal court?

DREIER: We have a very unique situation here. We have a very unique situation, the likes of which we've never seen before.

We have a man who obviously has moved on. I don't fault him for this. But he has two children by another woman. And, at the same time, we have parents who want to have an opportunity to care for their daughter, and they believe that she is in fact responding to them. And we're just saying, let's let the federal court hear this. Let's give her that opportunity. That's all we're-that's all we're saying.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: This is not a-this is not a unique situation. Families across America struggle with these kind of decisions every day. Why should...

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

DREIER: Of course they do.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: And who-no. And who are-who are 535 people, who know nothing about the facts of the case, who..

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: To simply say it should be heard in court. We're not making the decision, Chris.

VAN HOLLEN: No, to over-to overrule the decision properly made.

DREIER: We're not overruling anything. We're not overruling anything. We're simply saying-we're simply saying the parents should have an opportunity...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: This is jumping in, in one case, when-when we should not be jumping in like this in a private matter.

NOVAK: I understand you think she should make the decision.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: So, let's move on from there. One of your very liberal colleagues, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, on Friday said this. He said: "It's my belief that people with disabilities and deserve the utmost dignity and respect. I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts."

To answer Ralph's question, cases like this, federal review, what's wrong with that?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, the Congress may want to look at the overall question about cases where there may be a dispute with respect to whether or not the person who is on life support wants to continue on.

The way we've dealt with that for decades in this country is through the state court system. And this went through the system. And what Congress is doing, without the benefit of looking at the big question, is saying, we're going to parachute in on this one case and we're going to come up with a special ruling. This goes to the question that was raised.

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: ... see what happens.

VAN HOLLEN: Congress should-should not, again, be substituting its judgment for the people who have looked at the facts in this case.

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: ... have a day in court. That's what...

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: That's all we're...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: ... individuals have been answering that question for years, and they rendered a decision in this case.

NOVAK: When our guests return, we'll ask whether this case is really about the sanctity of a husband's wishes or could other motives be at play?

And just ahead, Wolf Blitzer takes us to the Kuwait-Iraqi border for a look at how U.S. troops there are helping to rebuild-rebuild the region, Ralph, rebuild it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

NOVAK: Welcome back. We're discussing the case of Terri Schiavo and debating her fate.

Joining us, Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Republican Congressman David Dreier of California-Ralph.

NADER: Congressman Dreier, Republican speeches yesterday on the House floor were full of compassion for human life.

Americans almost never hear such Republican words on behalf of hundreds of thousands wrongfully injured patients in hospitals, workers killed or disabled through on-the-job hazards.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: Or other people-or other people or other...

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: Wait. No-or other people other suffering-suffering from the violence of toxic pollutants or raw poverty every year.

Here's the question. Are we witnessing the beginning, perhaps, of a Terri Schiavo-induced epiphany by the corporate-controlled Republican Party in Congress to recognize some key priorities for regulatory law and order to stop these preventable losses of life and health in America?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

DREIER: That's a great question, Ralph.

Let me say that I totally disagree with your characterization. I will tell that you Republicans are very concerned about people who face challenges in every single walk of life. And we have evidence that we can point to. I mean, we disagree with your conclusion that, somehow, we want to plunder the environment, we want to jeopardize the lives of people.

What we want to do is, is we want to make sure that we take steps to ensure that everyone, everyone, from Terri Schiavo to Ralph Nader and anyone else has an opportunity in this country. And, if you juxtapose our standard of living, the environmental quality in the United States of America, to other countries that are struggling to get to the economic standing that we have today, we are head and shoulders above them.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: So you're going to push for a stronger OSHA and EPA?

DREIER: We're-we are-we're strongly supporting of doing everything that we can to improve our environmental quality and the standard of living for people in this country.

NOVAK: I hope, before we finish, Congressman, you could explain to me why the liberals, such as yourself, are so anxious to take action which would guarantee that this young woman would die. Is it a fear that this issue is going to support the anti-abortion movement, the whole culture of life, that it's going to be against euthanasia, that the whole idea of private decisions to take people's lives would been undermined if you-if she was-unless she dies?

(APPLAUSE)

VAN HOLLEN: Bob, it's-Bob, it's-it's our view that we should honor the decisions individuals make.

That is why fact-finders, independent doctors and independent guardians appointed by the court, looked at the facts of this case for years and years and years and said Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to have her life artificially extended, the way it has been.

DREIER: And we're going to have one last chance to do that, one last chance to do that now.

VAN HOLLEN: And it's our view-and it's our view that those decisions should be based on facts presented as to Terri Schiavo's choice an not the choice imposed upon her by 535 members of Congress.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: I'm curious.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: You've made-you've made that point.

VAN HOLLEN: That is the difference. We don't set ourselves up as doctor, judge or jury in this case.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: I just wonder. As a compassionate person, do you have any kind of misgivings about this woman starving to death, of dying of thirst gradually? Does that bother you at all?

(APPLAUSE)

VAN HOLLEN: What I want to make sure-and this goes out to families across this...

NOVAK: Can you answer that question? Does that bother you...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: ... country who have to struggle with these decisions.

The question is, if you were in that state, if I was in that state, would we want our decisions to prevail, Bob, based on the evidence?

NOVAK: You won't answer the question.

VAN HOLLEN: No, or do we want the decision...

(CROSSTALK)

DREIER: The court is going to have a chance...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN HOLLEN: Do you want 535 members of Congress making that decision for you or do you want it based on the facts?

NOVAK: Congressman Van Hollen, thank you very much.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

NOVAK: Chairman Dreier, thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/21/cf.01.html