Floor Statements

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. 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. 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.

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. 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!