Ric Keller

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, to go back to the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Inslee) question about the diet drug, I have explained it does not apply. It talks about ``a person's consumption of a qualified product.'' What is that? That is food under the definition. Food means articles used for food or drink, chewing gum and articles used or components of such article. The second part of it is of a weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain. What are the health conditions associated with a person's weight gain? High cholesterol, for example, diabetes, for example, cardiovascular disease. This has nothing to do with diet drugs or labeling of diet drugs or mislabeling. Whatever that person's claim under State law for negligence can go forward and is completely and totally unrelated to this bill.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to vote no on the Watt amendment dealing with the pending lawsuits. This amendment was raised at the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman made similar, consistent arguments, and it was shot down at the time. I would like to give three reasons why my colleagues should vote no. First of all, there is a good policy reason to vote no. Second, the Supreme Court will uphold this; and third, we have done similar language before in other bipartisan bills. First, with respect to the reason of policy, if such an amendment were passed, all that would happen is we would have hundreds if not more cases filed before the date of enactment, and we know that after this bill passes today, it has to pass the other body where we have Senator McConnell as the chief sponsor, so there would be a time frame where there would be an incentive to find the right jury and the right judge. We have an idea that is sort of their game plan because the one witness the Democrats called at the Committee on the Judiciary hearing was a man named John Banzhaf who said, ``Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the floodgates.'' So it does away with that incentive that clearly they want. Second, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can impose rules retroactively if it does so pursuant to an economic policy. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R.A. Gray is one example. Clearly a bill that aims to save the food industry from potentially bankrupting litigation like that of the tobacco industry is pursuant to a national economic policy, especially since it is the largest private sector employer in the country. Third, this exact same language appeared in H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, which enjoyed wide bipartisan support in this House and received 285 votes. I know the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) is going to say yes, but that bill was defeated in the Senate. Fair enough, it was defeated in the Senate, but it was because gun control measures were added to it. There were no changes to this particular provision. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the past. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Watt amendment.

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the Ackerman amendment on three separate grounds. First, the concept of adulterated food claims are specifically allowed, both under the base bill, where it specifically says adulterated in section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and under the manager's amendment, which specifically says that the term ``qualified civil liability action'' does not include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, it specifically defines adulterated food in section 342. A food shall not be deemed to be adulterated if it is considered in whole or part of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance, which, clearly, mad cow disease or e- coli or anything else would be considered. The second reason to reject this that it does not apply is the language of this particular bill expressly says that we are talking about claims relating to weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with weight gain or obesity: diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease. It does not have anything to do with mad cow disease. If a person eats a mad cow burger, their claim goes forward. If a person eats an e-coli burger, their claim goes forward. A final reason. The gentleman says, well, if that is the case, why does the gentleman care about my amendment? Well, let me address that as well. This amendment would exclude from the protections of the bill any company that uses particular methods to slaughter perfectly healthy animals. For example, if a company during the slaughtering process places cattle in positions, like in a coral, in which they cannot walk unassisted, then these perfectly law-abiding companies that make meat from perfectly healthy animals would be unfairly excluded from the bill. That is wrong. Perfectly healthy animals may be unable to stand or walk unassisted during the production process, so this amendment unfairly excludes many law-abiding sellers or perfectly healthy meat from perfectly healthy animals. For the aforementioned reasons, that it is not needed; and even if it was, it is inappropriate.

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. KELLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The manager's amendment specifically says, ``Such terms shall not be construed to exclude an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.'' I read the gentleman a section under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act dealing with adulterated products.

Mr. KELLER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I still, on the other grounds I mentioned earlier, it is still not needed because we are not talking about a claim based on weight gain or obesity.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Andrews amendment on several grounds. This amendment opposes additional regulations on the food industry, increasing their cost of doing business and threatening additional jobs in the food industry, our Nation's largest private sector employer. But more problematic, the amendment contains no definitions of what would constitute a proper label and, therefore, it would expose even those companies who could afford to comply with the new regulations to lawsuits that would cost yet more jobs. This amendment is an attempt to regulate an entire industry with one clause, and that is a recipe for confusion and disaster. Even companies who labeled, in an attempt to gain the benefits of the bill, might not get such protections because some judge somewhere will deem their attempt to label inadequate, and the amendment provides no standards to guide either the private sector or judges. Additionally, there is no definition in the amendment of genetically engineered, so people will not even know if their products have to comply with these additional regulations. Essentially where the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) should have his day is trying to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and make his changes there, but not here where it is so vague that it does not have those definitions that would be needed. Also I would point out that if there is some State statute dealing with genetically-altered foods and it requires certain labeling and so on and so forth or advertisement requirements, and if that State statute is violated, under the provisions of this bill, the claims could go forward. So I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Andrews amendment for the reasons suggested earlier.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the food industry is the largest private sector employer in the United States, providing jobs for 12 million American citizens. The consequences of these obesity lawsuits against the food industry is that consumers will pay a higher price for food in restaurants. Mom and pop restaurants would face unaffordable insurance rate hikes, and jobs could be cut as a result. This legislation, in essence, provides that a seller or maker of a lawful food product shall not be subject to civil liability where the claim is premised upon an individual's weight gain relating to the consumption of that food. This is a narrowly-drawn, measured piece of legislation. It does not immunize the food industry. This legislation does not preclude suits from false advertising, mislabeling of food, adulterated foods, or injuries from eating tainted food. The gist of this legislation is that there should be common sense in the food court, not blaming other people in the legal court. Most people have enough common sense to realize that if they eat an unlimited amount of french fries, milk shakes, and cheeseburgers without exercising, it can possibly lead to obesity. But in a country like the United States where freedom of choice is cherished, nobody is forced to supersize their fast food meals or to choose less healthy options on the menu. Similarly, no one is forced to sit in front of their TV all day and play video games, instead of walking or bike riding. Richard Simmons, the famous exercise guru, recently said that people who bring these lawsuits against the food industry do not need a lawyer, they need a psychiatrist, and the American public seems to agree. In a recent objective Gallup poll, nearly nine out of 10 Americans, 89 percent, oppose holding the fast food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food. Interestingly, overweight people agreed with skinny people that the fast food industry should not be held responsible for these types of claims. Which brings me to the subject of lawyers. And, while we are here, some of the same lawyers who went after the tobacco industry now have a goal of suing the food industry for $117 billion, which is the amount the Surgeon General estimates as the public health costs attributable to being overweight. Now, based on a standard contingency fee of 40 percent, that means these selfless lawyers interested in public good would be recovering $47 billion for themselves in attorneys' fees, and that is, ultimately, what this is about. In fact, in June of 2003, lawyers from all across the United States gathered in Boston for what they called the first annual conference on legal approaches to the obesity epidemic. To attend each work shop, the people had to sign an affidavit to attend the legal work shop in which it said, ``This is intended to encourage and support litigation against the food industry.'' One of the ringleaders of this litigation conference is a lawyer named John Banzhaf. Mr. Banzhaf freely admits that his goal is to open the floodgates of litigation against our Nation's largest private sector employer: the food industry. Specifically, Mr. Banzhaf said this: ``Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this. And once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the flood gates.'' Now, the Democrats could have called anybody they wanted to. We had a hearing on this. But they chose to call this man who says it will open the flood gates. He wants to open the flood gates. That is what they said then. Then they come here today and it is, What do you mean? There is no intent to sue the food industry. Well, indeed, lawsuits have been filed against McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Kraft/Nabisco with new suits now threatened by Mr. Banzhaf and others against the makers of ice cream. The New York suits included one with a man named Caesar Barber, who went on ``60 Minutes'' and told them, ``I want compensation for pain and suffering.'' ``60 Minutes'' said, ``How much money do you want?'' Caesar Barber: ``Maybe $1 million. That is not a lot of money right now.'' We must think of what this is about. The litigation against the food industry is not going to make a single person any skinnier; it is only going to serve to make the trial attorneys' bank accounts a lot fatter. In summary, we need to make it tougher for lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits. We need to care about each other more and sue each other less. We need to get back to the old-fashioned principles of common sense, of personal responsibility and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and sues others for their problem. This legislation is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 339.

Mr. KELLER. Well, that is for another day and another forum. It has nothing to do with this particular bill.

Mr. KELLER. Why do people allow mad cow burgers to be sold? I do not know that any company does knowingly allow mad cow burgers to be served.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an issue many low- income school children face every day as they go through the lunch line: embarrassment. Embarrassed that their parents cannot afford to pay for daily meals so they are singled out in the lunch line in front of their peers as participants in the free or reduced lunch program. I was encouraged to see a program in one of my local school districts, Lake County, Florida, that uses technology to enable every child to go through the school lunch line without being identified as a free or reduced school lunch recipient. Regardless of family income, every child has the exact same debit card which either their parents deposit money into or is funded by the program. Today, I am introducing the Pride in the Lunch Line Act, which will amend the National School Act to allow schools access to existing Federal funds to purchase technology like that used in Lake County. It will reduce the stigma for students, and it will reduce the paperwork for our schools. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Let us help children eat their lunch with pride.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute one of my constituents, a man whose diligence in his job as a border agent may well have saved the lives of each and every one of us here in Congress. Jose Melendez-Perez works at Orlando International Airport, the same airport that I fly in and out of every week, and in August of 2001, he stopped a man named al-Qahtani from entering the United States. As Mr. Melendez-Perez just told the 9/11 panel, al-Qahtani's story about why he was coming to America from Saudi Arabia just had too many holes in it. In spite of bone-chilling stares and intimidating finger pointing, Mr. Melendez-Perez refused to back down. The FBI and the CIA now believe that al-Qahtani was supposed to be the 20th hijacker during the attacks of 9/11. He should have been on that plane headed towards Washington that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. But thanks to Jose Melendez-Perez of Orlando, he was not. Every time he has been asked about his role in stopping the 20th hijacker, Mr. Melendez-Perez always says, ``I was just doing my job.'' Well, Mr. Melendez-Perez, I say to you, ``Job well done.''

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the National Mentoring Month Resolution introduced by Congressman Tom Osborne. This resolution recognizes and supports the efforts of mentoring programs across our Nation. It embraces the notion that volunteer mentors can change the life of a troubled teen. This resolution celebrates the month of January as a month-long campaign focused on raising awareness of mentoring programs, their impact on our youth, and information on how to volunteer to become a mentor. I am proud to be an original cosponsor to Congressman Osborne's resolution. Both Coach Osborne and I worked as mentors before coming to Congress and both felt a need to raise awareness of the cause once we were elected. Last Congress, we successfully passed the Mentoring for Success program, which provided money to start up new mentoring programs across the country. We also fought for increased Federal funding for local mentoring programs bringing that total to $100 million this year. In addition, we founded the Congressional Mentoring Caucus, a bipartisan organization designed to disseminate information about the positive impact mentoring programs have on our Nation's children. Mentoring programs offer many benefits to children, particularly as it relates to educating our children. These programs are proven to help prevent children from dropping out of high school. In the state of Florida, we had a big problem. Only 53 percent of our children were graduating from high school. So, in Central Florida, we decided to do something about it by creating the Orlando/Orange County Compact Program. The Compact Program is a mentoring program that matches up students at risk of dropping out of high school with mentors from the business community. The mentors meet with the students 1 hour a week to work on homework and projects. The results from this mentoring program have been dramatic. Over a period of 10 years, 98 percent of the children in the Compact Program have graduated from high school--the No. 1 graduation rate in the United States. I would also like to discuss the crime prevention benefits of mentoring programs. In Florida, 70 percent of the inmates in our jails and prisons are high school dropouts. It costs taxpayers $25,000 a year for each Federal prisoner, compared with only $5,000 a year to educate a student in our public schools. Clearly, making the investment in mentoring programs now will save us literally hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in terms of reduced jail costs and reduced welfare costs. In summary, mentoring programs make a meaningful difference in the lives of our young people; they improve education, prevent crimes, and will save us money. I urge all of my colleagues to support National Mentoring Month by participating in local programs in their home districts--together we can make a difference in the lives of our children.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the No Financial Aid for Sex Offenders Act for 2003. It is a national embarrassment that we are handing out taxpayer dollars for pedophiles and rapists to take college courses while hardworking young people from poor and middle class families are left to flip hamburgers and mow lawns to pay for college. In 1972, Congress created the Pell grant program to help children from low- and moderate-income families go to college. In 1994, Congress prohibited State and Federal prisoners from getting these Pell grants. This past year, 54 violent sexual predators in Florida obtained over $200,000 in Pell grants at taxpayer expense. They got a free ride by exploiting a loophole, that is, they were involuntarily confined in something called a civil commitment center as opposed to being called a prison. This legislation closes that loophole and ensures that this money will be used as intended, by needy law-abiding college students. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, H.R. 3385.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support this Iraq supplemental because it specifically includes language which I insisted on, which prohibits any American taxpayer dollars from being used to pay Iraq's foreign debts. Americans would be justifiably outraged if a dime of the taxpayer aid requested by President Bush allowed Iraq to pay creditors in France, Germany, Russia, or Saudi Arabia. I applaud Chairman Young for including this language to make sure that does not happen. As we move forward, we must do two things. First, while supporting President Bush and our troops, we must make sure that other countries and the Iraqis themselves contribute substantially to the rebuilding effort. Second, we must work toward the day when we can bring our troops back home and turn control over to a free Iraq. To achieve this mission, Iraqis are creating their own constitution. They are working toward free elections next year, and they are training 55,000 of their own people to provide their own future security. Now in the interest of straight talk, let me squarely address what may be the most controversial aspect of this bill, and that is whether the money to rebuild Iraq should be in the form of a grant or a loan. After personally speaking with Ambassador Paul Bremer yesterday, who was kind enough to call me from Baghdad, I decided to support President Bush's proposal to make this money available in the form of a grant. And let me tell the Members why. The cost of rebuilding Iraq is estimated to be $55 billion, and the United States is proposing to invest $18.6 billion toward that effort. That means other countries and the Iraqi people themselves will be expected to pay two thirds of the cost for rebuilding Iraq, which is appropriate. Supporting President Bush's proposal to make this money available as a grant has two key advantages. First, the conference in Madrid, Spain, on October 23 and 24 will remain a donors conference and not turn into a lenders conference. And second, Iraq will be in a much better position to write off nearly all of their foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support President Bush and vote ``yes'' on the Iraq supplemental and vote ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to salute one of the leaders in my hometown of Orlando, Florida, who has just been recognized as America's top cop. It is my happy privilege to announce to this Chamber that Orange County, Florida, Sheriff Kevin Beary is the winner of the 2003 National Sheriff of the Year award. I was pleased to personally recommend my friend Sheriff Beary for this award, and I did not say nice things about him just because every time I see him he is packing heat. Kevin is the fourth generation of the Beary family who have selflessly devoted themselves to protecting others. He commands one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the southeastern United States. He is not only responsible for the safety of 1 million people who live in the central Florida area but for the millions of tourists who visit places like Walt Disney World and Universal Studios in my district every year. As a member of the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I have relied heavily on his expert advice to help drive my law enforcement agenda. Sheriff Beary and I teamed up to protect the COPS program and put more police officers on the street. We have worked together to build a new Federal courthouse in downtown Orlando designed to embassy safety standards, and we have stood together shoulder to shoulder against casino gambling and the drug legalization movement in Florida. But I think most importantly we have worked together since the events of 9-11 to make sure that our first responders have the tools they need to protect the people of central Florida and the tourists who play in our backyard from those who would plot against our Nation. Kevin Beary is everything a sheriff should be. He is a friend to our most vulnerable citizens. He is a tireless volunteer in our community, and frankly he scares the hell out of the bad guys who would prey on our neighborhoods. Love him or fear him, everyone in central Florida knows Kevin Beary means business; and in light of this prestigious award he has now received, everyone in America knows too. When I have a question on an issue facing law enforcement before this Congress, the first thing I do is call my sheriff. I am pleased to have the 2003 National Sheriff of the Year Kevin Beary on my speed dial. I say to my colleagues they should all be so lucky.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the IDEA bill for two reasons. First, we have tripled the IDEA special education funding from $3 billion in over $10 billion since 1995, when Republicans took control of the House. Second, this bill will help reduce the paperwork burden on teachers so that they are able to spend more time in the classroom with the students rather than wasting hours a day filling out forms and performing clerical duties. I recently spent time in the classroom with some of our special education teachers. While working as a special education teacher for a day in an elementary and a high school in Orlando, Florida, I learned firsthand that special education teachers spend approximately 2 hours a day completing government-required paperwork. I have tried to address this problem head on by drafting the paperwork reduction provisions in this IDEA bill. These paperwork reduction provisions incorporate the good ideas we received from parents; teachers; the Council for Exceptional Education, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization; and the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. For example, this IDEA legislation helps reduce the paperwork burden on teachers by requiring the Secretary to develop model forms for the IEP, by creating a pilot program for 10 States, and by allowing parents the flexibility to choose to develop the multiple-year IEP for their child to a maximum of 3 years. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this IDEA bill because it will improve the lives of disabled children in Orlando, Florida, and all across the country by making a historic increase in special education funding and by reducing the paperwork on teachers.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Cunningham amendment to strike $1 billion in foreign aid to Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally; and because of its location just to the north of Iraq, it was strategically important to the United States in our military plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But at a time when we needed Turkey the most, on March 1, 2003, the Turkish Parliament rejected a resolution to allow 62,000 U.S. troops, 255 planes, and 62 helicopters to enter Turkey. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, pathologically aggressive dictator with a history of attacking several countries bordering Iraq. Our country has incurred many casualties. We spent billions of dollars to help reestablish the reign of peace and stability throughout the Middle East. Why is Turkey not giving us $1 billion? And these fair-weather friends in Turkey, are they even grateful that the United States is giving them $1 billion in American taxpayers' money, money that is extracted from the paychecks of waitresses, secretaries, and small businessmen? The answer is no. Recently the Turkish Ambassador to the United States stated, ``This is not something Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the U.S. administration.'' We are giving $1 billion to Turkey in the name of friendship when it is clear to anyone with common sense that friendship cannot be bought. One billion dollars is a lot of money. It is enough to send 250,000 American children to college on Pell grants. Let us use our taxpayer dollars wisely. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Cunningham amendment and strike the $1 billion in foreign aid to Turkey.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Recreational Marine Employment Act, which I recently introduced with broad bipartisan support. Through enactment of this legislation, the recreational marine industry will be able to create thousands of new jobs by ensuring that marinas, boat builders and recreational boaters will not have to pay the unnecessary and exorbitant insurance premiums under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. Congress never intended that recreational marine jobs be covered under the Longshore Act, which applies to commercial ships, not recreational boats, since individuals who work in the recreational marine industry are already covered under State worker's compensation laws. This legislation will simply clarify that the recreational marine industry is exempt from the Longshore Act. A recent survey indicated that employers in the recreational marine industry would save an average of $99,000 a year if this legislation passes, and 95 percent of those employers would use the savings to create additional jobs. This bill would provide the common-sense clarification needed under the Longshore Act. I urge my colleagues to call my office today and sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 1329.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, because there is absolutely a medical liability crisis in Florida which will, among other things, result in patients in Orlando with severe head injuries not having access to a doctor. Let me give one example of the crisis. The Orlando Regional Medical Center is a large hospital located in the heart of my district in Orlando, Florida. It is home to the only level-1 trauma center in the central Florida area. It specializes in treating patients with severe head injuries. The trauma center was praised last month by the State of Florida as delivering patient care that is ``above and beyond'' that of other level-1 trauma centers. I personally toured this trauma center, and I can tell my colleagues it is a source of pride for many central Floridians. Last week, Orlando Regional Medical Center announced that they were closing in April 2003 because the neurosurgeons in the Orlando area can no longer afford skyrocketing medical liability insurance premiums. Now, how bad is the situation? Dr. Jonathan Greenberg, the chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at ORMC, personally told me that the malpractice insurance premiums have risen five-fold over the past 2 years from $55,000 a year to $256,000 a year. We do not have to guess what the consequences are when this sort of facility is closed down. Just last week, Mrs. Leanne Dyess testified before our Committee on the Judiciary. Her husband suffered one of these severe head injuries in a car accident. There were no longer any neurosurgeons in the area because they could not afford the liability insurance. As a result, it took 6 hours to airlift Mr. Dyess to a different location. It was too late. Mr. Dyess is now permanently brain damaged. He is unable to talk, unable to work, unable to provide for his family. We must bring common sense back to the health care system so that patients with severe head injuries have access to trauma centers. We should care about each other more and sue each other less. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5 and the rule. I will also include in the Record an article dated March 11, 2003 from Dr. Greenberg and published in the Orlando Sentinel. [From the Orlando Sentinel, Mar. 11, 2003] Neurosurgeon: Save Trauma Center (By Jonathan Greenberg, M.D.) A human tragedy of immense proportions is unfolding in Central Florida, and my neurosurgical colleagues and I have been unable to prevent it. Less than two weeks after a state trauma-site review lauded Orlando Regional Medical Center's Level I trauma center for its high level of patient care and dedication ``above and beyond'' that at other Level I centers, the ORMC administration was compelled to inform the state that it will go off-line as an adult Level I trauma center as of April 1 because of the lack of neurosurgical coverage. Seven neurosurgeons resigned from the ORMC medical staff, citing the physical stress of on-call requirements, medical malpractice-insurance premiums, increased liability exposure in treating trauma patients and the adverse impact that on- call coverage has had on their private practices. I cannot fault my neurosurgical colleagues for having taken this action. They have complained that they were being charged significantly increased malpractice-insurance premiums--or were going to be denied malpractice insurance altogether--for the privilege of getting up in the middle of the night to take care of critically ill head and spine- injured patients. Three neurosurgeons have closed their practices and left the community. Trying to replace them has been almost impossible. What sane physician would move to a state known to be in the throes of a ``medical malpractice-insurance crisis,'' where insurance is either unobtainable or exorbitantly priced, and where there is a constant threat of frivolous but nonetheless disruptive lawsuits? ORMC has lobbied vigorously for relief; we have demonstrated to increase public awareness and spoken with state representatives. For those who denied that there was a ``physician drain'' or a problem with the tort system, who asserted that this was only an insurance-industry, stock-market-cyclical financial problem, who ignored the looming crisis, the end results of denial, deception, apathy and procrastination are clear. As of April 1, Central Florida will have lost one of its most precious assets, the ORMC Level I trauma center. There will not be enough neurosurgeons left to fully man the on- call schedule. We know that in the past many patients survived their injuries because they were brought to ORMC; they would not have survived elsewhere. After April 1, similarly injured patients may not survive. I am profoundly saddened by this prospect. It will take more than an act of God to avert this catastrophe. It will take responsible action by the governor, the state Legislature, and county and regional leaders. Band- Aid solutions will not save a health-care system that is exsanguinating. ORMC has the only Level I trauma center in the state without sovereign immunity. Relief from predatory lawsuits and unaffordable insurance premiums and adequate compensation for extraordinary medical care will be necessary.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. I rise today to introduce the ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003''. As a Member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, I will be working with Chairman Boehner in the coming months to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Over the past year, I have heard from many teachers, in my home district of Orlando, Florida, about their concerns regarding the special education law. One issue was particularly troublesome to me because it seemed to be something that I felt could be easily solved--the paperwork burden for special education teachers. This legislation will work to pinpoint and alleviate the excess paperwork, thereby increasing the quality instruction time a teacher can spend with their students in the classroom while also ensuring that special education students are receiving a quality education. Last year I toured local schools in my district of Orlando, FL, to get a first-hand understanding of the problems that parents, teachers and administrators face implementing a successful special education program. One teacher took me into an office where he showcased a typical day's work of filling out all of the required forms for a special education student. I was shocked to learn that teachers spend so much of their time complying with process instead of being able to teach and assist students in the classroom. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was never intended to take teachers' time away from the classroom, rather it was intended to ensure that special education students were able to receive the same classroom instruction as their general education peers. Unfortunately, over time the paperwork trail has grown as states and local districts try to ensure that they have complied with the federal law. The threat of being sued has encouraged an overabundance of paperwork in order to document the school's compliance with the law. When did ``process'' overshadow the importance of actual quality instruction and results? When a principal testifies that their IEP Teams spend an average of 83.5 hours filling out paperwork in preparation to sit down for an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, with a student's parents--something makes me wonder about the 83.5 hours taken away from classroom instruction time. IEP's are of course an important aspect of IDEA, but there can be some commonsense reforms put in place to reduce the redundancy of the process. The ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003'' will call for a study by the Department of Education to be furnished within 6 months of authorization to determine where the burden is stemming from, and provide suggestions to mitigate the issue. The Department will be required to issue a streamlined IEP for school districts to use as a model. It will also call for a pilot program for 10 States to enter into an agreement with the Department of Education to perform their own paperwork reduction programs to see if any reforms can stem from State innovation. In addition, the legislation would allow local education agencies to offer parents the option of choosing a 3-year IEP--this would allow the process to occur at natural transition points for the child instead of every year. During a voluntary 3-year IEP, should the parent decide at any point during the 3 years that their child is not receiving adequate services, they can call for an IEP to be commenced within 30 days. These commonsense reforms included in the ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003'' will ensure that IDEA is results-driven, not process-driven. The legislation will improve the academic achievement of special education students and empower parents, while also doing away with an overly prescriptive and burdensome process for teachers. It will enable teachers to save valuable classroom instruction time for exactly that-- classroom instruction. I encourage my colleagues to call my office to cosponsor the ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003''.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support he National Mentoring Month Resolution introduced by Congressman Tom Osborne. This resolution recognizes and supports the efforts of mentoring programs across our Nation. It embraces the notion that volunteer mentors can change the life of a troubled teen. This resolution celebrates the month of January as a month-long campaign focused on raising awareness of mentoring programs, their impact on our youth, and information on how to volunteer to become a mentor. I am proud to be an original cosponsor to Congressman Osborne's resolution. Both Coach Osborne and I worked as mentors before coming to Congress and both felt a need to raise awareness of the cause once we were elected. Last year, we successfully passed the Mentoring for Success program, which provided money to start up new mentoring programs across the country. In addition, we founded the Congressional Mentoring Caucus, a bipartisan organization designed to disseminate information about the positive impact mentoring programs have on our Nation's children. Mentoring programs offer many benefits to children, particularly as it relates to educating our children. These programs are proven to help prevent children from dropping out of high school. In the state of Florida, we had a big problem. Only 53 percent of our children were graduating from high school. So, in Central Florida, we decided to do something about it by creating the Orlando/Orange County Compact Program. The Compact Program is a mentoring program that matches up students at risk of dropping out of high school with mentors from the business community. The mentors meet with the students one hour a week to work on homework and projects. The results from this mentoring program have been dramatic. Over a period of 10 years, 98 percent of the children in the Compact Program have graduated from high school--the number one graduation rate in the United States. I would also like to discuss the crime prevention benefits of mentoring programs. In Florida, 70 percent of the inmates in our jails and prisons are high school dropouts. It costs taxpayers $25,000 a year for each federal prisoner, compared with only $5,000 a year to educate a student in our public schools. Clearly, making the investment in mentoring programs now will save us literally hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in terms of reduced jail costs and reduced welfare costs. In summary, mentoring programs make a meaningful difference in the lives of our young people; they improve education, prevent crimes, and will save us money. I urge all of my colleagues to support National Mentoring Month by participating in local programs in their home districts--together we can make a difference in the lives of our children!

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002.'' This legislation will increase the quality instruction time a teacher can spend with their students in the classroom while also ensuring that special education students are receiving a quality education. Due to the approaching reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, I went and toured local schools in my district of Orlando, FL last year to get a first-hand understanding of the problems that parents, teachers and administrators face implementing a successful special education program. I heard many familiar complaints being made about discipline and funding of the program, but what really took me by surprise was when a teacher took me into an office where he showcased a typical day's work of filing out all of the required forms for a special education student. I was shocked to learn that teachers spend so much of their time complying with process instead of being able to teach and assist students in the classroom. I think I speak on behalf of most Members here, when I say that IDEA was never intended to take teachers' time away from the classroom, rather it was intended to make sure that special education students were able to receive the same classroom instruction as their general education peers. Unfortunately, over time the paperwork trail has grown as states and local districts try to ensure that they have complied with the federal law. The threat of being sued has encouraged an overabundance of paperwork in order to document the school's compliance with the law. When did ``process'' overshadow the importance of actual quality instruction and results? When a principal testifies that their IEP Teams spend an average of 83.5 hours filling out paperwork in preparation to sit down for an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, with a student's parents--something makes me wonder about the 83.5 hours taken away from classroom instruction time. IEP's are of course an important aspect of IDEA, but there can be some commonsense reforms put in place to reduce the redundancy of the process. The ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002'' will call for a study by the Department of Education to be furnished within 6 months of authorization to determine where the burden is stemming from, and provide suggestions to mitigate the issue. The Department will be required to issue a streamlined IEP for school districts to use as a model. It will also call for a pilot program for 10 states to enter into an agreement with the Department of Education to perform their own paperwork reduction programs to see if any reforms can stem from State innovation. The legislation will implement a pilot program to create a 3-year IEP review process. This would allow the process to occur at natural transition points for the child instead of every year, but there will always be a safeguard in place for parents to request an IEP review at any point within the 3 years to ensure that their child is receiving all of the services they deem necessary. These commonsense reforms included in the ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002'' will ensure that IDEA is results-driven, not process- driven. The legislation will improve the academic achievement of special education students, while also doing away with an overly prescriptive and burdensome process for teachers. It will enable teachers to save valuable classroom instruction time for exactly that-- classroom instruction. I encourage my colleagues to call my office to cosponsor the ``IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002.'' Thank you and I reserve the balance of my time.