Ron Klein

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let's get down to the bottom of what we are trying to accomplish here. There is a problem in the United States, in certain parts of the United States, where the insurance market, unfortunately, cannot deal with a very large disaster. Now, some of our colleagues may not have been exposed to this problem because in their markets they haven't had any large-scale natural disasters, but the more time that passes, the more communities are affected by large-scale natural disasters. The impact of a very large-scale natural disaster is that the insurance industry in these areas retrenches, pulls back, cancels policies or they call them nonrenewal. I have to tell you, one of the most frustrating things after living through some hurricanes in Florida was members of my communities calling me up, as a State Senator, saying, I paid my premium for 15 years straight, and now I am afraid to make a claim because I have had some damage, never made a claim before, but I am afraid to make a claim because the insurance company is going to cancel me. Something is wrong with the market, free market, as we like to think of it, if that is happening. People want to know the bargain is if I have paid my premium my insurance company is going be there and there is some stability behind it. What we have tried to do is recognize that in some cases, not many, but in some cases, and the very high scale of large-scale natural disasters, there is some reaction that has to be provided. What we have done, instead of putting the government in the middle of it, which is exactly where it is right night now, no matter how you slice it, every time there is a large-scale natural disaster that the insurance company can't deal with, the States can't deal with, then the Federal Government comes rushing in, from Washington, with a big check. What we have been trying to do is something proactive, up front. We have come up with some plans from experts in the insurance industry and the consumer side and everything else to balance this out. What this amendment does is it arbitrarily limits the ability of programs to meet the reinsurance needs of the respective States not provided for by the private sector. The limit shows, and it is a 100- year event. Why 100? Why 1 in 100? Why not 1 in 50? Why not 1 in 250? As you can imagine, a 1-in-250-year event really changes the dynamics of the equation of what will have to be paid in reserves and make sure that the money is there. They have chosen 100 years. That is consistent with the way we have very carefully, with a lot of input, chosen to work on this formula. We have chosen events where the losses have exceeded 150 percent of the aggregate amount of direct premium over the prior year. That is a direct reflection of what's going on in that local market, how much premium's been paid. It's a 1.5 factor over and above that. It's very well thought out. It may not be perfect. It may be over time there's a better way to do it, but this is a very consistent approach we've taken throughout the bill. If you adopt this amendment, we are now creating two inconsistent measures which I don't think will ever work together. So I would suggest that this amendment not be adopted. I believe that we have come up with something that is logical, it's common sense, it reacts to the fact that there is a need here. And again, for those folks who live in parts of the country that don't have natural disasters up to this point, let's all continue to pray and hope that we don't have many natural disasters. But we're a country that's in this together. Certainly our insurance is something that we want to make sure everyone has the ability to have private homeowners insurance. But more importantly, every taxpayer is part of a bail out. We're trying to avoid that for the future. So I would suggest the amendment should not be supported. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. There is no money that under this program goes to the State. It goes to the participants of the risk catastrophe funds. Those are independent.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. The way this is designed is that the loans are structured between the risk catastrophe fund and the Treasury under terms and conditions that are acceptable to the Treasury. Now, if there is a default under those terms and conditions, it's already clear in our bill that the Treasury will not lend under any future natural disaster, if that's what you are concerned about, and I think it says here. It's already part of the bill, and I think that answers the question.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. The good news is that we are in agreement that we certainly want to make sure this is fiscally sound and responsible. I think we all agree on that. The only thing I'm suggesting, as we pull up this language, is that it's already in the bill. The intention is that the Treasury have this authority. If it isn't clear, we would be glad to fix it. But I think it is crystal clear and we'll just pull it up.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The Full Taxpayer Repayment section of the bill, page 20, line 6: ``The Secretary shall require the full repayment of all loans made under this title. If the Secretary determines at any time that such full repayment will not be made, or is likely not to be made, the Secretary shall promptly submit a report to the Congress explaining why such full repayment will not be made or is likely not to be made.''

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for an excellent amendment which really adds some good value to the bill. And basically what it does is it creates a metric by which States can determine whether joining the consortium in the future would provide a benefit. It's information. The more information the States have, the better, the more consumers will benefit. I think that's the kind of ongoing accountability, both to the taxpayers and to the States themselves, in terms of whether this is something that a particular State should join. So I appreciate the suggestion. We didn't think of it. It's another good example of us all coming together and trying to put something together that makes some sense. So I would like to support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act. This bill responds to the growing crisis in the availability and affordability of homeowners insurance and further works to protect the financial solvency of States. This bipartisan legislation represents many months of deliberation and thoughtful input from members of both parties and across each region of the United States. We recognize that disasters will continue to occur across the country and are moving proactively to ensure that a plan is in place before the next one strikes. Every region of the United States is susceptible to some form of natural disaster, be it earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes, or wildfires, and we are here to provide relief. It is important to understand that insurance availability and affordability problems have become a national issue. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners across the country have already had their insurance coverage dropped or are currently slated for nonrenewal by their insurance company. Those who remain insured are confronted with crippling premiums, which in some cases is forcing homeowners to make tough decisions about whether to go with or without property insurance, if they have that choice. Insurance problems are not isolated to Florida, Mississippi, or Louisiana. Last year property insurers indicated that they plan to stop offering new coverage in Maryland and Virginia's coastal markets, and property insurers have also stopped writing new policies for residents in Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut, no matter where in the State the property is located. Furthermore, tens of thousands of homeowners in Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, and Texas have also been dropped as well. And adding to that, even with California's known record of seismic activity, over 84 percent of California homeowners currently do not have earthquake policies. It is simply unacceptable for property owners not to be able to get reliable coverage in these markets, and it is precisely this reason that legislation is necessary. The Homeowners' Defense Act aims to take a twofold approach by establishing a program to help States responsibly manage their risk before disaster strikes while also providing financial assistance to ensure that they can quickly and efficiently respond to homeowners insurance claims following a natural disaster. Specifically, this bill provides a venue for State-sponsored insurance funds to voluntarily bundle their catastrophic risk with one another and then transfer that risk to the private markets through the use of catastrophic bonds and reinsurance contracts. The legislation also allows for the Federal Government to extend loans to cash-strapped States after a large-scale natural disaster so that they can meet their obligations to homeowners. By utilizing new strategies and an innovative capital market approach, the bill allows investors to assume some of the risk currently held by the States in return for an interest payment. The voluntary nature of the program, coupled with the use of the capital markets, ensures that homeowners in less disaster-prone States will not be on the hook if a disaster strikes a neighboring State. I want to emphasize that the opt-in nature of this plan creates no burden or obligation whatsoever on States that do not choose to participate. This is essential. The total economic impact accompanying natural disasters resonates throughout our entire Nation. The total economic damages from the 2005 hurricanes will likely exceed $200 billion, with the Federal Government taking responsibility for paying out in excess of $109 billion for disaster relief. Although we all agree that it is necessary, this Federal spending is drawn equally from taxpayers across the country, not simply from those in affected regions. Through this legislation, we are looking to take a proactive approach where States responsibly plan in advance of a disaster, rather than a reactive approach, where the Federal Government and every taxpayer opens up the Treasury after a catastrophe. It is important to emphasize, however, that the status quo is no longer an option. We must work together to establish a system to make sure that property insurance is both available and affordable for hardworking families and those most in need. I urge Members to vote in favor of this much-needed legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. This is exactly what this Congress is doing. It's coming up with a lot of new ideas that need to be put out there, debated, discussed, and hopefully passed. And I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Article I himself, the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you very much, the gentleman from Minnesota. We have a very, very special guest today, an honorary member of our freshman class, a senior Member of the Congress, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, who'd like to join us and add something to our conversation.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. The Colorado Rockies were playing. That's right. We're going to turn it back to the gentleman from Minnesota to get some thoughts on SCHIP and other things.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ellison. Just to follow up on the point, a number of our colleagues have been talking about the idea of oversight and accountability. Well, the simple answer is not just for the exercise of bringing people in by subpoena or asking them to come in and talk, it's to learn from your mistakes. It's a very simple principle. What do we teach our children? Learn from your mistakes. What do you do in business? You want to learn from your mistakes. That, of course, is what the whole purpose of this is. If we see something has gone wrong, accountability, some bad business practices that the government is involved with or paid for something they shouldn't have paid for, let's not let it happen again. That's the simple bottom line. I would like to shift, because many of our Members are interested-- thank you, Mr. Hodes, otherwise known as Vanna White--Mr. Hodes is holding up a little poster here which talks about the children's SCHIP plan. The SCHIP plan, as I think everyone is now familiar with, or many people are in our country, or certainly Members of Congress are, it's about making sure that children, low-income children can participate in a health care plan that's private health insurance. It makes the parents pay on a sliding scale what they can afford. It leverages tax dollars. It does everything it's supposed to do. Our business community back home in my area loves it. It's very popular because instead of kids going to the emergency room, they are going where they should go, and that is to get doctor and preventative health care. We have had a bipartisan plan that has now been passed twice out of this chamber, and the President vetoed it one time, and I guess he is going to veto it again, but bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans coming together, not everybody, but all the Democrats, I think, just about all, and many Republicans. In the Senate, I think the Republicans are the ones who helped draft this. It really brings it together. A quick little fun thing on Halloween here, it talks about the trick-or-treat and the Republican plan, we are just sort of joking around a little bit, but we are calling it the trick, and the bipartisan plan the treat. The Republican plan, which we are calling the trick, covers 8.3 million children. The treat, the plan that most of us are pushing, Democrats and Republicans, covers 10 million. This is an additional number of children that we believe are part of this plan that we want to get covered. The targeting of low-income kids, in the Republican plan it targets fewer lowest-income children. In the Democratic plan, the one we just passed, it enrolls the lowest-income kids first, a goal that we all want to make sure that we are covering. And of course there is a cigarette tax in both plans, the exact same cigarette tax to pay for it. The question though is, if the same amount of money is being raised, why are we covering 10 million in the Democratic bipartisan plan and we're only covering 8.3 million in the Republican plan? Where's the money going? So we obviously want to have the lowest taxes possible, but we want to cover the most number of children. And I know that that's something that I know the president of our class has been very interested in. I know that Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado has joined us in our freshman class, has taken a lead in, and I know your experiences in Colorado. Maybe you can share some of your thoughts on the SCHIP plan with our group here in the Chamber today.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. And thank you, Mr. Welch. It really was very well explained and easy to follow. I think what people in this country respect is the fight. The fight is good, but at the end of the days, results. The President has made it very difficult, unfortunately. He has been unwilling to come out of his corner. A lot of alternatives have been offered on the war, a lot of alternatives have been offered on SCHIP which we are going to talk about in a minute, a lot of alternatives. As we have talked about already, there have been a lot of accomplishments, student loans, minimum wage, people competing in business. We have had a lot of good things so far which the President has signed, which is good. But there is more to do. We need to get him sort of out of the view that it's him versus the Congress, or his ideology versus the rest of the country. People want consensus. They want solutions. I would like to turn to Mr. Solution himself here, because Mr. Ellison from Minnesota has really totally been bringing a lot of consensus on a whole lot of issues, from our foreign policy issues to our domestic issues. I want to bring you into this conversation and please add some value to it.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. We are very proud to have the gentleman from Tennessee as one of our colleagues and a great contributor to the freshman class, particularly on accountability. There have been so many members of our class that came in with the criticism of our campaigns that we had heard from so many people back home, who is the check and balance? Who is minding the store? What happened to that $8 billion of cash that disappeared on the streets of Iraq? What's with Blackwater? What's with all these kinds of things? Who is checking what's going on here? You know, it's one thing to say you are going to run things like a business, it's another to do it. Businesses have known checks and balances, shareholders, managers, things like that. Unfortunately, it wasn't happening with this government. It's now changing. I am very proud of you and the others. I am very proud to have another gentleman with us, the gentleman from Vermont, who has been at the forefront of the committee itself, working with Mr. Waxman. I know you have been very vocal on these issues, so I am going to turn it over to the gentleman, Mr. Welch, from Vermont.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressman from New Hampshire. I think you bring up something that although back home when people are thinking about these issues, they don't necessarily think about the battle between the President and Congress or the battle between the agency head and Congress. But I think the bottom line is what you just said. It's about the rule of law. I mean, every American accepts the fact we're a Nation of laws, we live by the rule of law, and there's nobody that gets excepted from that, whether it's someone who's cleaning an office or whether it's someone who's an accountant or whether it's the President of the United States. We're equal, and it doesn't have to mean somebody's been elected or not. We're all under the same law. I think that's the bottom line of this whole consideration. I now would like to bring into this conversation a colleague of ours from the freshman class, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for really highlighting the importance of article I. I mean, it's something we all went to elementary school and middle and high school and learned about our Constitution, but it is that balance of power that really sets our country out from any other country in the world, any other democracy. And I know the gentleman from New Hampshire has also taken a real lead in explaining and talking about the application of this and how the abuses have just been out there. So, if the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes), would share some of your thoughts with us.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I think you have provided great leadership for all of us in our freshman class. We are freshmen now for 9 months. As you said, what the President categorizes as wasting time and the notion that nothing is getting done, well, there are some things that are getting done. Most importantly, there are some things that are on the brink. We will talk about a couple of those things. Before I turn it over to the gentleman who is going to talk about the balance of power and how we are going to get to where we want to go here, because that is the American value of our democracy, I am going to list a few of the items that we have passed in this Congress with Democrats and Republicans, Democrat leadership but Republicans coming together, many of them, and the President signed them. A couple of things that are very, very important, I know many of these subjects were talked about in our campaigns. Many people said 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, a thorough report that unfortunately most of it was not adopted. It has been adopted by this Congress in full and paid for. I come from an area in Florida where we have ports, two major seaports in my district, and many airports. Many of you from all over the country have the same thing. It's now fully funded. We are making sure that the cargo is screened and all of the cargo, whether seafaring or air, is moving along. PAYGO. We all believe in strong fiscal management. You only pay as you go. No more guessing we are going to have all this money in the future. No more taking the war and not even counting it against the national deficit. We now have a standard that was passed unanimously in this Congress. You can only spend what you have, just like you balance your books at home. We made ethics and lobbying a reform priority. We now have gift bans. I don't need a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. I can buy my own cup of coffee. It is a standard everybody should have, and now it is in place. We passed America COMPETES which is an innovative agenda supported by Chambers of Commerce all over the country, putting our priorities first in math and science and making sure the high-tech jobs will stay here. We have lower interest rates for education. We all know the importance of a college education is crucial. Every one of these bills I have ticked off so far, I have listed so far, were passed by this Congress and signed by the President. We are very, very proud of that. Again, we have to talk about it. There is a water resources bill for those with water projects. In my area, it is the Everglades. Many have polluted rivers and lakes and water issues. That bill was passed overwhelmingly by the Congress. It is on the President's desk. He has said he may veto it. If he does, that may be the first bill that gets overridden because I think there are enough votes. And we will come back to SCHIP. It is a bipartisan supported bill written by Democrats and Republicans, and it is a wonderful bill. But before we get to SCHIP, I want to turn it over to Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky to talk about what our democracy is all about and how this balance of power needs to come through.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this evening along with my colleagues from our freshman class. It is Halloween, and we are happy to be here. We know that our friends and neighbors are celebrating the holiday with their families, but we are going to talk about a little trick or treat, if you will, tonight. In addition, we are going to talk about some things that tie into a little bit of a Halloween theme and what is important in America right now. Back on the streets and back in the homes of the families that are very, very concerned about our country and the opportunities that their children have, taking care of their parents and grandparents, these are things that we recognize as all Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, that we have a responsibility to work with our businesses and our community leaders and our families to make sure that we make life a little bit better. Before I get into some of the details, I am going to yield to the president of our freshman class, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman. We are down to our last couple of minutes, so I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Hodes and then Mr. Cohen if you want to wrap it up.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank my colleagues for being here this evening. We do this once a week. We're looking forward to seeing you all next week and having this continuation of discussion. And, of course, we look forward to working with everyone in this country to make sure that we resolve and come to some successful conclusions on some of these issues that are so important to our country.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, this summer the Democrat-led House completed work on all 12 appropriations bills that fund the Federal Government for the upcoming year. Each bill restores fiscal responsibility, ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and was passed with bipartisan support. Our bills will not add money to the Federal deficit because we kept our promise to adhere to pay-as-you-go rules. Yesterday, financial watchdogs, including the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget praised the new Congress for our strict adherence to the PAYGO rules. Contrast that praise with the Bush administration's record of turning record surpluses into record deficits. President Bush has borrowed more money from foreign nations than all 42 of his predecessors combined. Yet the President threatens to veto our appropriations bills because he says they are excessive. Does he really oppose important investments in veterans health care, pay raises for active duty soldiers, funding for more cops on our streets, and funding for life-saving medical research? Americans need to send a message to President Bush to get his priorities right.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, yesterday, I voted to table H. Res. 767, a motion that would have delayed the business of the day in order to censure Congressman Stark. I felt that Congress should spend its time prudently, on important issues that matter to the American people, not on issues that divide us. With that said, I do not condone or support Congressman Stark's statements of October 18, 2007. I believe that he was right to apologize on the House floor. Our brave men and women fight wars because they believe in protecting American citizens and their freedoms. Just a few days after Mr. Stark made his comments, I visited our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and I saw their determination and patriotism. I could not be more proud of our troops serving around the world, and I will continue to work hard to provide them with the best supplies and protection when they are in battle, and then, the best care when they return home.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you, the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota. It was great. It reminded me of being back in school of reading the Federalist Papers and those kind of things. But for those folks listening in this room and around the country, I think we all understand very clearly this is a living, breathing document, the Constitution. It has changed over the years, not the language, but the belief, but the fundamental goals and the values behind it are all the same. I think when I speak to people back in Florida, and they say to me, ``Get control over the problems in Iraq,'' whether that is changing the policy or making sure that the armor is there and that our military is properly supplied. ``What happened in Katrina? How could our government, when we saw those pictures on TV, how would could this be the United States?'' We look at third-world countries around the world and surely we go and support them, and yet in our own cities we saw the failure of the government. And unfortunately, at that time, very little ``buck stops here'' kind of response. People died unfortunately, billions of dollars in property loss, and just the bruising of the American psyche, not to mention the loss of personal lives in New Orleans and other places. It was so wrong on so many levels. I think that hurt America. But the key in what our responsibility is, Members of Congress and Americans together, is to say, let's learn from the errors. Let's learn from our mistakes. That is where the accountability, the balance of power, asking the questions, getting the answers, learning from those mistakes, whether it is in Iraq and finding out where those billions of dollars of cash have gone so it doesn't happen again, whether it is foreign policy or whether it is policy that affects everything in this country. We saw a bridge collapse. Are we looking at all the bridges in the United States to make sure that our infrastructure is safe? Mr. Ellison obviously is deeply involved and truly has been a great leader and hero to your community because you obviously knew exactly what needed to be done there. But these are the questions. Where is America today? And the only way we are going to continue to be this great country, this beacon around the world, is to be able to have a thriving democracy that doesn't let one end of the spectrum, in this case the executive branch, run over and not allow the Members of Congress and the American people to ask the questions, get the answers, learn and move forward in a very, very positive way, which is the American value that we all have. Americans can do anything they want. We know that. But you can't have Washington stopping it. Unfortunately, until this most recent Congress of which we are all privileged to be a part, we had year after year after year where Congress unfortunately didn't do its job in many of our opinions. I am very proud to say that we are making many of the right moves here. We have a lot more work to do. Let's make no mistake about it. Americans demand and expect us to do our job, to do it with fervor and excitement and make sure we correct some of these mistakes and move forward. But we need help from the executive branch. They have to realize there are limits to those responsibilities. There are no personal issues here, but responsibilities of moving this country ahead. If everyone will get out of their corner a little bit and come together, I think we can solve all these problems and do it in a very positive way.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky and all of my colleagues here in our freshman class. We all ran in these difficult elections almost a year ago, but I think the very strong message that came out of all of us coming to Washington was a very strong message from back home, and that is the responsibilities, as was suggested by our colleagues, that we all know, from our civics classes back in high school and elementary school, that the beauty and the strength of the United States and our democracy is all about checks and balances. It's what makes our system a democracy. We can look at other models in Europe and Asia and around the world and dictatorships and things like that, but the strength of what works in this country is checks and balances. What we believe is going on and the reason this emphasis on article I is so important and for our public and the people in this country to jump on this and work with us and recognize this and talk about it is because there has been a falling down of one side. We're out of balance. There are three legs to the stool. Each one has a specific set of authority. The judges, the judiciary, interpret. The legislature, that is, the Congress, has the authority to make the laws. And the executive has certain authority into executing and following and, through the agencies, doing certain things. But when one branch gets out of whack, it means the power is coming from another branch. This isn't about personal power. This is about the strength of our democracy. That is the exciting piece here. So this check and balance is not about President Bush, or any President. It's not about anybody in particular because there are future and past leaders that have all tried to exercise in certain ways. This is about where we are going in the future. I think as the gentlewoman from Ohio has already correctly mentioned, there has been a failure over the last number of years in the legislative branch, the Congress, in fighting back and asserting itself in terms of oversight and accountability and follow-through to make sure that the executive branch, the President and the executive branch, are doing what they are supposed to do, whether it is executing the war in Iraq and making sure that billions of dollars are not flowing out without any follow-up, whether it is an Attorney General that may not have necessarily been following some of the laws as we understand them or at least having the opportunity to ask the questions and not be stonewalled by the executive branch. This is what it's all about. It is a balance. It's a beautiful thing, truly, but it has got to work. As the gentleman from Kentucky has correctly stated, and I thank him for bringing up in our discussion article I, this conversation that is going to happen throughout our country for the next couple of months is, let's make sure Congress does its job, let's limit the executive branch to do what it has to do, and make sure that our system works in its form of accountability that we have.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the buoyant U.S. services industry, an unsung American success story that will continue to ensure that our workforce is second to none in the global economy of the future. Services impact every village, town, city, and State all across this country in nearly every sector of the economy. Just think about the services we all rely on: lawyers, doctors, bankers, insurance agents, accountants, nurses, college professors, restaurant workers, web designers, and software engineers. And there are many more service workers who touch our lives every day. What is often lost in attention-grabbing headlines is that the United States has run a large trade surplus in services since 1971 with almost 90 percent of the $72 billion surplus generated by business and professional services. Services accounted for 77.8 percent of U.S. private sector gross domestic product in 2005, or $8.5 trillion. The services industry remains the engine of growth in our economy and we must not take our eye off the ball. The United States is also the world's largest and most competitive exporter of services. We have enjoyed surpluses in the services sector since the 1970s because U.S. companies are exporting a wide range of high-value services around the world that other nations value, like financial services, express package delivery, web hosting, or software design. We are second to none in the services sector against our international competitors. To keep our lead, we need to strive for fair and open markets around the world so that we can sell these services in other countries. Close to 400 congressional districts have 70 percent or more of their workforce employed in the services industry. By 2012,19.2 million new services jobs will be created, which would account for 90 percent of all new job creation, according to the Coalition of Service Industries. This is a phenomenal achievement and clearly where our workforce of the future will come from. In my home State of Florida and in my congressional district, some 85 percent of all our jobs stem from a wide variety of services. And we're growing. In 2002, there were 5.5 million Floridians involved in services employment. That number grew to 5.9 million by 2005. Between 2004 and 2005, Florida's exports of services grew 13 percent to $23 billion. Services are being used in areas that we could hardly dream of just a decade ago. With today's fast-changing technology, services are provided around the globe--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For instance, IBM, one of my constituents which employs nearly 1,200 highly skilled workers at its Boca Raton facility, is providing a host of innovative services from its south Florida hub, such as network services, integrated technology services, and e-business hosting. To give you an example of the IBM skill set, the company is testing speech translation-based products in my district. One of the products currently undergoing testing is a ``speech to speech'' voice recognition translator with two-way real-time speech capability. IBM is donating this key technology to the U.S. Government to translate between Iraqi Arabic and English. A user speaks into the system in one language, their speech is recognized, translated, and spoken in another language using a combination of IBM technologies. They are also donating 1,000 laptops or handheld devices plus 10,000 software licenses to support better communication between the U.S. military, Iraqi citizens, and aid organizations in Iraq. We sincerely appreciate this type of corporate commitment to our community. Services are making the world more connected, allowing producers, consumers, and everyone in between to communicate and collaborate quickly and easily in every comer of the globe. Our service industries are constantly providing new ways to innovate, both here and abroad, to grow our economy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize the impact and importance of this growing, vital sector to our economy and to keep fair and open markets that service providers need to achieve even greater success in the skills-based knowledge economy of the future.