Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Terri Schiavo: Who Should Decide?
Aired March 21, 2005 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, Ralph Nader; on the right, Robert Novak.
In the CROSSFIRE, the fate of Florida's Terri Schiavo is now in the hands of the federal courts, after Congress and the president work into late night to pass a new law. Should Washington have stepped in?
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.
ANNOUNCER: Who should decide whether Schiavo's feeding tube should be reinserted? Her husband?
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, HUSBAND OF TERRI SCHIAVO: It's not President Bush's wish. This is about Terri Schiavo, not the governor, not President Bush.
ANNOUNCER: Or her parents?
BOB SCHINDLER, FATHER OF TERRI SCHIAVO: We're very thankful for both the House and the Senate for passing this bill and saving, literally saving Terri's life.
ANNOUNCER: Defining life and the way it should end today on CROSSFIRE.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, Ralph Nader and Robert Novak.
(APPLAUSE)
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
I'm not normally one to advocate an increased role for the federal government in medical matters or personal decisions. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, President Bush was absolutely right to get involved. Now in the hands of a U.S. district court judge in Tampa is the question of whether she shall be starved to death by her husband's decision. But it's unlikely that the final decision will be made there.
Joining me on the left today to discuss that question is Ralph Nader. And now the best little political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
RALPH NADER, GUEST CO-HOST: Thank you. Thank you, Bob.
My fellow Princetonian Donald Rumsfeld frequently sugarcoats the situation is Iraq. Yesterday, he did more of the same. He should consult with regular Iraqis, who say they have less street security, less electricity, more food shortages, worse sewage overflows, a broken health care system, wartime destruction, mostly unrepaired, unemployment doubled to 60 percent, and even gasoline prices 10 times higher than they were under the tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Add 14 military bases, the U.S. corporate takeover of their oil industry and much of their economy to Paul Bremer's freedom-destroying decrees, including a ban on trade-union activities, and you the case for the reeducation of Donald Rumsfeld via the Web site, DemocracyRising.us.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: Well, I'll tell you, Ralph, you should have read the front-page story in "The New York Times" today by the eminent foreign correspondent John Burns about the tide may be turning.
He says insurgent are attacking -- this is Baghdad -- smaller and with less intensity. More attacks into the Green Zone have diminished sharply. Major raids have uncovered some weapons caches.
(BELL RINGING)
NOVAK: And some rebel leaders have been arrested or -- or killed. So, it's looking better.
NADER: Not when you ask the guys on the ground in Iraq. It's getting worse.
NOVAK: Howard -- Dean was expected to entertain as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And he did not disappoint last night.
He declared that Democrats tend to -- quote -- "explain every issue in half-an-hour of detail" -- unquote. That, he said, is why the party lost last year's election to what he called brain-dead Republicans. Brain-dead? Is that appropriate in a time of national debate over the Terri Schiavo case? You can count on Dr. Dean to use the wrong phrase. The trouble is that he cannot escape his favorite scream speech in Des Moines last year. ESPN, reporting on the University of Vermont basketball team, even showed the old film clip of the former Vermont governor just screaming.
(APPLAUSE)
NADER: I agree. The -- I agree. The Republicans are not brain- dead. Their brains are marinated in corporate cash, brewed -- brewed... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
NADER: Brewed into -- brewed -- brewed -- brewed into a subservient soup by corporate chefs.
NOVAK: They should have named you as national chairman, instead of -- instead of Dean. You do a...
(CROSSTALK)
NADER: He won't return my calls. I'm trying to give him some good advice.
NOVAK: You would do a better job than Dr. Dean.
NADER: All right, oil prices are skyrocketing.
(BELL RINGING)
NADER: Over $2 per gallon and closer to $3 per gallon in California. Every penny per gallon per year amounts to $1.5 billion from your consumer pocketbooks to the oil industry.
Yet, the Bush regime refuses a thorough investigation, especially into the closings and reduction of refinery capacity in this country. Oil men Bush and Cheney also refuse to regulate upward your vehicle's fuel efficiency to levels long achievable by auto engineers and already achieved by Toyota and Honda cars. Wake up, General Motors.
NOVAK: Well, Ralph, you know very well, of course, that the problem is that we haven't been building refinery capacities because of environmentalists like you. And we haven't been drilling in the ANWR, where the -- you're so worried about the fuzzy animals that we don't get oil out of there.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: So, once we start doing that again, I would hope that we would have a decline in oil prices.
(APPLAUSE)
NADER: Let's add, closing 24 refineries in the last 25 years; 24 refineries in this country, they have closed down. They could build new ones on the same site, no environmental problems.
NOVAK: Well, they should. They should. But you people have made it very hard. You want everybody to walk around with a cane, instead of ride in a car. You know, we..
(CROSSTALK)
(BELL RINGING)
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: Automobile-riding public.
NADER: Do have you the citation for that claim, Bob?
NOVAK: I don't.
Yet another possible entrant in the 2000 Republican presidential derby, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Am I kidding? A Republican nominee from the Deep South, a former million-dollar-a-year lobbyist, a good old boy who prefers drinking hard whiskey to white wine and is always carrying a few too many pounds?
Yes, "Washington Whispers" in "U.S. News" mentioned Governor Barbour. And that is what has been the buzz behind the scenes for weeks. Haley is a terrific politician. He was an excellent Republican national chairman, and he's making a wonderful governor of Mississippi. If an old movie actor could be a great president, why not an overweight, hard-drinking son of the Deep South?
NADER: What a stretch, Bob.
(APPLAUSE)
(LAUGHTER)
NADER: I mean, you're really stretching it. I always thought conservatives preferred teetotalers to whiskey-holics, No. 1.
No. 2, Haley Barbour is mostly known around the country for pushing for laws to block seriously injured Americans from having their full day in court against wrongdoers, like corporations selling them dangerous products.
NOVAK: Well, I thought -- I thought he was against the trial lawyers who are -- who are raping the American economy. And I -- you know, I like to drink and Haley like to drink. And we're not whiskey hogs.
(BELL RINGING)
NOVAK: But we have a good time.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: It's a case...
NADER: Saved -- saved by the bell.
NOVAK: It's a case that has drawn the attention of millions,, including Congress and the president. Next, we'll debate who should decide whether Terri Schiavo gets to live or die.
ANNOUNCER: Join Carville, Begala and Novak in the CROSSFIRE. For free tickets to CROSSFIRE at the George Washington University, call 202-994-8CNN or visit our Web site. Now you can step into the CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
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 (R), 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 (R), 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)
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Judy Woodruff, reporting from Washington.
Coming up at the top of the hour, it has been two years since the United States invaded Iraq. Wolf Blitzer will be reporting from the Persian Gulf tonight.
Also, a federal judge hears arguments on removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
And why gasoline prices may continue to go up.
All those stories and much more just minutes away on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Now back to CROSSFIRE.
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.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: What would you do if you won $100,000? That's what a lot of people were thinking before they got some really bad news. Just ahead, find out what happened.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: A new scandal at "The New York Daily News" is really hitting readers where it counts. Thousands of people thought they had won up to $100,000 in a sweepstakes published in Saturday's edition of the paper. It turns out there was a printing mistake. The paper blamed the agency that runs the contest and published a correction. But that's little consolation for the unlucky winners.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I won. I am a winner, and I expect to get paid.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think it's fair. And I want my $100,000.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
NOVAK: Aren't we all entitled to 100 grand that we really didn't win?
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: What do you think, Ralph?
NADER: Well, I mean, as between the newspaper that conveyed the mistake to its readers and the readers, who should bear the risk? It should be "The Daily News." Otherwise, they're going to lose circulation and lose the readers...
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: Pay them $100,000?
(APPLAUSE)
NADER: No, but it all totals to no more than about a million bucks. Don't worry. It's very rare that someone won $100,000. Who bears the risk, the newspaper who conveyed the mistake or the readers?
NOVAK: Well, as a "New York Post" columnist, I agree. All right.
(LAUGHTER)
NADER: From -- from the progressive left, I'm Ralph Nader. That's it for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.
"WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" starts right now.
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired March 21, 2005 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, Ralph Nader; on the right, Robert Novak.
In the CROSSFIRE, the fate of Florida's Terri Schiavo is now in the hands of the federal courts, after Congress and the president work into late night to pass a new law. Should Washington have stepped in?
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.
ANNOUNCER: Who should decide whether Schiavo's feeding tube should be reinserted? Her husband?
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, HUSBAND OF TERRI SCHIAVO: It's not President Bush's wish. This is about Terri Schiavo, not the governor, not President Bush.
ANNOUNCER: Or her parents?
BOB SCHINDLER, FATHER OF TERRI SCHIAVO: We're very thankful for both the House and the Senate for passing this bill and saving, literally saving Terri's life.
ANNOUNCER: Defining life and the way it should end today on CROSSFIRE.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, Ralph Nader and Robert Novak.
(APPLAUSE)
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
I'm not normally one to advocate an increased role for the federal government in medical matters or personal decisions. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, President Bush was absolutely right to get involved. Now in the hands of a U.S. district court judge in Tampa is the question of whether she shall be starved to death by her husband's decision. But it's unlikely that the final decision will be made there.
Joining me on the left today to discuss that question is Ralph Nader. And now the best little political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
RALPH NADER, GUEST CO-HOST: Thank you. Thank you, Bob.
My fellow Princetonian Donald Rumsfeld frequently sugarcoats the situation is Iraq. Yesterday, he did more of the same. He should consult with regular Iraqis, who say they have less street security, less electricity, more food shortages, worse sewage overflows, a broken health care system, wartime destruction, mostly unrepaired, unemployment doubled to 60 percent, and even gasoline prices 10 times higher than they were under the tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Add 14 military bases, the U.S. corporate takeover of their oil industry and much of their economy to Paul Bremer's freedom-destroying decrees, including a ban on trade-union activities, and you the case for the reeducation of Donald Rumsfeld via the Web site, DemocracyRising.us.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: Well, I'll tell you, Ralph, you should have read the front-page story in "The New York Times" today by the eminent foreign correspondent John Burns about the tide may be turning.
He says insurgent are attacking -- this is Baghdad -- smaller and with less intensity. More attacks into the Green Zone have diminished sharply. Major raids have uncovered some weapons caches.
(BELL RINGING)
NOVAK: And some rebel leaders have been arrested or -- or killed. So, it's looking better.
NADER: Not when you ask the guys on the ground in Iraq. It's getting worse.
NOVAK: Howard -- Dean was expected to entertain as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. And he did not disappoint last night.
He declared that Democrats tend to -- quote -- "explain every issue in half-an-hour of detail" -- unquote. That, he said, is why the party lost last year's election to what he called brain-dead Republicans. Brain-dead? Is that appropriate in a time of national debate over the Terri Schiavo case? You can count on Dr. Dean to use the wrong phrase. The trouble is that he cannot escape his favorite scream speech in Des Moines last year. ESPN, reporting on the University of Vermont basketball team, even showed the old film clip of the former Vermont governor just screaming.
(APPLAUSE)
NADER: I agree. The -- I agree. The Republicans are not brain- dead. Their brains are marinated in corporate cash, brewed -- brewed... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
NADER: Brewed into -- brewed -- brewed -- brewed into a subservient soup by corporate chefs.
NOVAK: They should have named you as national chairman, instead of -- instead of Dean. You do a...
(CROSSTALK)
NADER: He won't return my calls. I'm trying to give him some good advice.
NOVAK: You would do a better job than Dr. Dean.
NADER: All right, oil prices are skyrocketing.
(BELL RINGING)
NADER: Over $2 per gallon and closer to $3 per gallon in California. Every penny per gallon per year amounts to $1.5 billion from your consumer pocketbooks to the oil industry.
Yet, the Bush regime refuses a thorough investigation, especially into the closings and reduction of refinery capacity in this country. Oil men Bush and Cheney also refuse to regulate upward your vehicle's fuel efficiency to levels long achievable by auto engineers and already achieved by Toyota and Honda cars. Wake up, General Motors.
NOVAK: Well, Ralph, you know very well, of course, that the problem is that we haven't been building refinery capacities because of environmentalists like you. And we haven't been drilling in the ANWR, where the -- you're so worried about the fuzzy animals that we don't get oil out of there.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: So, once we start doing that again, I would hope that we would have a decline in oil prices.
(APPLAUSE)
NADER: Let's add, closing 24 refineries in the last 25 years; 24 refineries in this country, they have closed down. They could build new ones on the same site, no environmental problems.
NOVAK: Well, they should. They should. But you people have made it very hard. You want everybody to walk around with a cane, instead of ride in a car. You know, we..
(CROSSTALK)
(BELL RINGING)
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: Automobile-riding public.
NADER: Do have you the citation for that claim, Bob?
NOVAK: I don't.
Yet another possible entrant in the 2000 Republican presidential derby, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Am I kidding? A Republican nominee from the Deep South, a former million-dollar-a-year lobbyist, a good old boy who prefers drinking hard whiskey to white wine and is always carrying a few too many pounds?
Yes, "Washington Whispers" in "U.S. News" mentioned Governor Barbour. And that is what has been the buzz behind the scenes for weeks. Haley is a terrific politician. He was an excellent Republican national chairman, and he's making a wonderful governor of Mississippi. If an old movie actor could be a great president, why not an overweight, hard-drinking son of the Deep South?
NADER: What a stretch, Bob.
(APPLAUSE)
(LAUGHTER)
NADER: I mean, you're really stretching it. I always thought conservatives preferred teetotalers to whiskey-holics, No. 1.
No. 2, Haley Barbour is mostly known around the country for pushing for laws to block seriously injured Americans from having their full day in court against wrongdoers, like corporations selling them dangerous products.
NOVAK: Well, I thought -- I thought he was against the trial lawyers who are -- who are raping the American economy. And I -- you know, I like to drink and Haley like to drink. And we're not whiskey hogs.
(BELL RINGING)
NOVAK: But we have a good time.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: It's a case...
NADER: Saved -- saved by the bell.
NOVAK: It's a case that has drawn the attention of millions,, including Congress and the president. Next, we'll debate who should decide whether Terri Schiavo gets to live or die.
ANNOUNCER: Join Carville, Begala and Novak in the CROSSFIRE. For free tickets to CROSSFIRE at the George Washington University, call 202-994-8CNN or visit our Web site. Now you can step into the CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
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 (R), 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 (R), 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)
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Judy Woodruff, reporting from Washington.
Coming up at the top of the hour, it has been two years since the United States invaded Iraq. Wolf Blitzer will be reporting from the Persian Gulf tonight.
Also, a federal judge hears arguments on removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
And why gasoline prices may continue to go up.
All those stories and much more just minutes away on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Now back to CROSSFIRE.
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.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: What would you do if you won $100,000? That's what a lot of people were thinking before they got some really bad news. Just ahead, find out what happened.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: A new scandal at "The New York Daily News" is really hitting readers where it counts. Thousands of people thought they had won up to $100,000 in a sweepstakes published in Saturday's edition of the paper. It turns out there was a printing mistake. The paper blamed the agency that runs the contest and published a correction. But that's little consolation for the unlucky winners.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I won. I am a winner, and I expect to get paid.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think it's fair. And I want my $100,000.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
NOVAK: Aren't we all entitled to 100 grand that we really didn't win?
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: What do you think, Ralph?
NADER: Well, I mean, as between the newspaper that conveyed the mistake to its readers and the readers, who should bear the risk? It should be "The Daily News." Otherwise, they're going to lose circulation and lose the readers...
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: Pay them $100,000?
(APPLAUSE)
NADER: No, but it all totals to no more than about a million bucks. Don't worry. It's very rare that someone won $100,000. Who bears the risk, the newspaper who conveyed the mistake or the readers?
NOVAK: Well, as a "New York Post" columnist, I agree. All right.
(LAUGHTER)
NADER: From -- from the progressive left, I'm Ralph Nader. That's it for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.
"WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" starts right now.
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
