Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank the gentlelady from Florida on this work on price-gouging. She and I served in the legislature in Florida and worked together with many others on price-gouging legislation. I don't think anybody can condone any kind of price-gouging in a natural disaster or at any other time, but certainly in a time of a natural disaster.

What the amendment to the amendment does is it provides some flexible language in the implementation of this. It certainly is something that we want to encourage States to move forward on as part of their eligibility, but recognizing we also want to make sure we're not creating impediments in terms of many States getting involved in the natural disaster consortium as quickly as possible.

So I am in full support of this flexibility language, and that's exactly what the amendment does.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, what has just been expressed by our colleagues from around the country is that this is a time for action on an issue that is well overdue. There have been many parts of the country that have been hit by this insurance problem for a long time. But I can tell you that whether you are in the State legislature, like I was in the past, or in the Congress, or in any local government, or even a lot of businesses, a lot of times when you want to study something and you want to put it on the shelf and collect dust, it is not going anywhere. This particular provision, this particular idea sounds nice. It says, oh, we are going to study this and we're going to study that and have qualified people come together. Well, do you know something? That is what we have been doing. We have been bringing together qualified people.

We have spent a lot of time, bipartisan, a lot of experts in the field, consumer groups and experts on Wall Street and people in the industry to really figure out what is the right way to do this. Is this perfect? I don't know. But we have certainly tried to do what we think is common sense and we are moving in the right direction.

The notion of studying it and coming back, and this particular provision says coming back on June 1 of 2008 with a report which will then be presented to the Financial Services Committee, which will then hold hearings and more hearings and more hearings, and then it will end up in the Senate, we are talking about 2015 before they even bring a bill up.

Well, we have something here today that is a bill. It is an idea, a set of ideas that have been developed, and we are ready to move on it. And the people back home are ready for us to move it. They want action. They want relief from their insurance bills. They want to know as taxpayers there is a better way of doing this than the Federal Government writing a check every time. That is what this bill does.

So with all due respect to those folks who say, let's study it more, it hasn't been studied enough, yes, it has. It has been studied enough. And we will continue to study it when it goes over to the Senate. But we are looking to make a bill, finalize a bill here in the House today. Let the Senate take it up over the next couple of months and let's get some relief to the homeowners of the United States when it comes to their homeowners insurance.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentleman from California. Although we are from different parts of the country and sort of the extreme points of the country, we share, along with many people in other quarters of the country, the same problem; and it is a problem with dealing with these large-scale natural disasters which are difficult to predict and, at the higher end, difficult to insure. Whether it is mud slides or wildfires or earthquakes or tornadoes or major floods or hurricanes or blizzards or any number of other things which cause very large-scale damage, we need to find a way to come together and resolve this, which is what, of course, this plan is trying to do.

What the gentleman has proposed, and is something I think we should all recognize, is the fact that earthquakes don't distinguish between a house and an office building, or a house and an apartment building, or any other number of commercial or private structures. I think the notion here of trying to, again, pool interests is something that deserves a lot of attention.

I would like to pose a notion to the gentleman. I know the Chair of Financial Services has mentioned that he would like to hold a hearing, because as we developed this, we were pretty close to certain this would work with the residential property community, and even put something in the bill at the gentleman's request about the multi-family properties as well, because I think that is a big issue.

As it relates to the broader issue, I think we want to continue to investigate this, to understand from the Congressional Budget Office's point of view, making sure that, as this does meet PAYGO, we want to make sure this continues to meet PAYGO; and I think if we were to adopt this amendment, I think there would be some question about that.

If the gentleman would respond as to whether he would withdraw the amendment now, with the commitment, I think from chairman of the Financial Services Committee, to, number one, hold a hearing and bring all the necessary information together and continue to work on this, whether it is in this piece of legislation as it moves to the Senate, or we all work together on another piece of legislation to deal with the same issue.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and look forward to working with him on that issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3355, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, cross-referencing, and amendatory instructions, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Offered By: Mr. Klein of Florida

Amendment No. 16: Page 2, after line 7, in the item in the

table of contents relating to section 202, strike ``State and

Regional'' and insert ``Qualified''.

Page 4, line 6, strike ``(known as timing risk)''.

Page 4, line 15, strike ``existing''.

Page 6, strike lines 3 through 12, and insert the following

new paragraph:

(16) State catastrophe reinsurance programs, if

appropriately structured and regulated, assume catastrophic

risk borne by private insurers without incurring many of the

additional costs imposed on private insurers, and thus enable

all insurers within the State to underwrite and price

coverage at rates designed to encourage property owners to

acquire levels of insurance appropriate to their individual

risks.

Page 6, line 14, strike ``a Federal backstop'' and insert

``Federal support''.

Page 7, line 18, after ``entity'' insert ``, or State-

sponsored provider of natural catastrophe insurance,''.

Page 8, line 1, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.

Page 8, line 2, before the semicolon insert ``, and State-

sponsored providers of natural catastrophe insurance''.

Page 13, line 19, strike ``STATE AND REGIONAL'' and insert

``QUALIFIED''.

Page 14, line 5, strike ``State or regional'' and insert

``qualified''.

Page 14, line 16, before the comma insert ``at a

commercially reasonable rate''.

Page 14, line 21, before the semicolon insert ``at a

commercially reasonable rate''.

Page 15, line 2, strike ``and'' the first place such term

appears.

Page 15, lines 3 and 4, strike ``the loan is afforded the

full faith and credit of the State and''.

Page 15, strike lines 21 through 23 and insert the

following new subparagraph:

(B) cannot access capital in the private markets at a

commercially reasonable rate.

Page 17, line 4, strike ``privately issued''.

Page 18, lines 9 and 10, strike ``real property or

homeowners' '' and insert ``residential''.

Page 19, strike ``section 301(c)'' each place such term

appears in lines 3 and 11 and insert ``section 401(d)''.

Page 20, line 9, after ``not'' insert ``be''.

Page 20, after line 12, insert the following new title:

Offered By: Mr. Klein of Florida

Amendment No. 17: Page 2, after line 7, in the item in the

table of contents relating to

section 202, strike ``State and Regional'' and insert

``Qualified''.

Page 4, line 6, strike ``(known as timing risk)''.

Page 4, line 15, strike ``existing''.

Page 6, strike lines 3 through 12, and insert the following

new paragraph:

(16) State catastrophe reinsurance programs, if

appropriately structured and regulated, assume catastrophic

risk borne by private insurers without incurring many of the

additional costs imposed on private insurers, and thus enable

all insurers within the State to underwrite and price

coverage at rates designed to encourage property owners to

acquire levels of insurance appropriate to their individual

risks.

Page 6, line 14, strike ``a Federal backstop'' and insert

``Federal support''.

Page 7, line 18, after ``entity'' insert ``, or State-

sponsored provider of natural catastrophe insurance,''.

Page 8, line 1, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.

Page 8, line 2, before the semicolon insert ``, and State-

sponsored providers of natural catastrophe insurance''.

Page 13, line 19, strike ``STATE AND REGIONAL'' and insert

``QUALIFIED''.

Page 14, line 5, strike ``State or regional'' and insert

``qualified''.

Page 14, line 16, before the comma insert ``at a

commercially reasonable rate''.

Page 14, line 21, before the semicolon insert ``at a

commercially reasonable rate''.

Page 15, line 2, strike ``and'' the first place such term

appears.

Page 15, lines 3 and 4, strike ``the loan is afforded the

full faith and credit of the State and''.

Page 15, strike lines 21 through 23 and insert the

following new subparagraph:

(B) cannot access capital in the private markets at a

commercially reasonable rate.

Page 17, line 4, strike ``privately issued''.

Page 18, lines 9 and 10, strike ``real property or

homeowners' '' and insert ``residential''.

Page 19, strike ``section 301(c)'' each place such term

appears in lines 3 and 11 and insert ``section 401(d)''.

Page 20, line 9, after ``not'' insert ``be''.

Page 20, after line 12, insert the following new title:

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. 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).

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. 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. 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, for yielding me time and Congressman Faleomavaega for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, coral reefs are among the most diverse, biologically complex, and valuable ecosystems on Earth. In my home State of Florida, we are fortunate to have the third largest barrier reef in the world. Along with their natural beauty, Florida's coral reef systems serve as a critical place for fish habitat and as a potentially lifesaving barrier against hurricanes as well.

But it's only on an everyday level that coral reefs probably have the greatest impact on south Florida, serving as an important source of tourism, jobs and revenue. In Broward County alone, coral reefs contribute over $2 billion annually to the local economy.

However, coral reefs are in nothing short of a crisis. Because of a variety of threats, scientists estimate that 60 percent of coral reefs may disappear before 2050.

That's why I'm very proud to support all of my colleagues' efforts today to bring this legislation forward. H.R. 1205 will make important changes to the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. One will be able to take advantage of the vast resources and expertise at various coral reef conservation institutions across the country, like the National Coral Reef Institute.

The National Coral Reef Institute will be hosting the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium next year in Florida, which will bring together scientists from throughout the world, over 3,000 of those scientists, to discuss coral reef issues. Harnessing their experience and knowledge and other institutions' will be a vital component of any Federal coral reef conservation plan.

Another important aspect of this legislation we're considering today will be to authorize NOAA to respond to vessel groundings. Since 1994, we've seen 12 large ships run aground on sensitive coral reef areas near Ft. Lauderdale. The last one, occurring almost a year ago, involved a freighter that left a 20-foot swath of destruction along 100 feet of a coral reef. Whatever coral that once lived there is now, unfortunately, gone.

Part of the solution to vessel groundings is adopting better prevention strategies, such as closing anchorage sites in shallow waters that are close to coral reefs. And I'm very proud that the Coast Guard and others have worked to achieve this objective.

But we also need to respond faster when a vessel does run aground, because the sooner coral reefs can be restored, the better chances for their survival. Expanding NOAA's authority to act will allow NOAA to utilize their experience and resources to both assess the damage and restore the reefs.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation. I thank the sponsors on both sides of the aisle, and recommend that we move forward.

Madam Speaker, President Bush rejected the wishes of the American people, 68 Senators, 43 Governors, and 265 Members of this body when he vetoed the children's health bill.

The reason that so many Democrats and Republicans support the CHIP Reauthorization Act is that it is consensus legislation that was crafted in a bipartisan fashion.

Over the last 10 years, the children's health program has proven to be a popular and successful program, with 6 million children currently receiving quality private health care. It costs less than $3.50 per day to cover a child through the CHIP program. Insuring kids is also cost effective for taxpayers who end up picking up the tab for indigent care in emergency rooms, the most expensive way to care for a child's health. A child is also more likely to succeed in education and life if they have access to health care at an early age, and it certainly benefits our Nation in the long run.

Madam Speaker, I would hope more of my Republican colleagues would work together to recognize the success story of CHIP, and would join us today in overriding the President's veto. We need to ensure that more children have access to quality health care.

Madam Speaker, I would have voted on Wednesday, October 3, however I was unavoidably detained, and I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 934 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 935.

Mr. Speaker, when President Bush announced that he was keeping the troop escalation plan in effect until next summer, it was clear that he had no plan for ending the war in Iraq. In fact, the administration admits that they see our troops remaining in Iraq for at least 10 more years.

President Bush continues with the status quo in Iraq even though the Iraqi Government is not fulfilling its promise to meet the political benchmarks that were outlined by President Bush himself earlier this year.

House Democrats are not going to tolerate another decade of our troops serving as referees in a civil war. And while this Congress cannot force the President to change course in Iraq until some of our Republican colleagues break ranks with the administration, I think that they even see the value in forcing this administration to finally come up with an exit strategy that is strategic in purpose.

Today the House will vote on legislation that would require the President and his administration to develop and submit a comprehensive redeployment strategy within the next 60 days. This war cannot go on indefinitely, and this administration needs to begin preparing for the day that we can finally bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to put the spotlight on an ominous trend in our region. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have left New York, but he remains close by. From the U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Ahmadinejad flew to Bolivia and then to his friend, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela.

Ahmadinejad, with his hate-filled rhetoric and his funding of global terror, is too close for comfort. I rise to urge our friends in Latin America to refuse the Iranian president's advances and see him for what he is: a bully who disregards international will and who ignores our efforts against terrorism.

The 1994 bombing of the Argentine Jewish Community Center shows that the Iranian presence in Latin America has been dangerous in the past. This week, Argentina called on the U.N. General Assembly to urge Iran to more fully cooperate with the investigation so that justice can finally be served for this heinous act of terrorism.

Coming from south Florida where I live, when something happens in Latin America, we feel it. My district has many economic and familial ties to Latin America. Our friends in Latin America have been our partners in fighting terrorism, and we look forward to continuing our mutually beneficial partnership with these countries to make our areas safe and more secure.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to start by commending Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello for their leadership in crafting this ambitious bill and taking some of the complex and critical challenges facing our aviation system to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, air travel in our country, unfortunately, has deteriorated in many ways to an alarming and unacceptable state over the past couple of years. According to a recent Reuters article in July, it confirmed that the 20 largest airlines are on pace for their worst year ever in delays, cancellations and congestion. Now, outgoing FAA Administrator Marion Blakey has warned that airport delays are likely to become worse, a distressing admonition from one of the country's foremost authorities on air travel.

Clearly, there is plenty of blame to go around. An aging infrastructure, outdated technology, unrealistic flight schedules, an overstretched workforce, along with poor weather, computer glitches, and inadequate space in between planes, have all been cited as contributing to the problems with air travel. With so many deficiencies stressing the system, it is no surprise that we have reached this point.

It is also no surprise that the American people are frustrated. We have all heard from our constituents, demanding that we do something with the inexcusable treatment they have received during their air travels. I have heard from one constituent who sat on the tarmac for 3 hours before her flight was cancelled and wasn't able to board another flight until the next day. I think we have all heard those examples.

Another constituent told me that his flight was canceled; and instead of rebooking, the airline made him fly standby. He had to wait 36 more hours before he finally got back. Still another had her bags missing for over 6 months.

Mr. Chairman, this treatment is unacceptable. The American people deserve better, whether they are traveling for business or leisure. They have paid their hard-earned money to fly on a plane, and they deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. If they are not receiving that from the airlines, they should be able to turn to someone who can put pressure on the airlines to give them the respect they deserve.

That is where my amendment comes in. It would require the Department of Transportation to investigate, subject to appropriations, consumer complaints for a broad range of issues, including flight cancellations, overbooking of flights, baggage problems, ticket refund problems, and incorrect or incomplete fare information to help address the growing unrest among air travelers who receive unacceptable consumer service.

I have no intention of reinventing the wheel here, however. The Department of Transportation already operates a division that handles airline consumer complaints, with authority to issue warnings, cease and desist orders and fines.

However, because of a variety of reasons, including budgetary constraints, the Department has chosen to greatly limit the number of investigations it pursues, focusing mainly on discrimination and disability claims. Other

types of claims are simply logged and reported monthly, giving consumers with legitimate grievances no recourse or explanation for their treatment.

What I am proposing is a simple expansion of the division so that they have the authority and resources to investigate a wider range of legitimate consumer grievances. I think it is a fair and reasonable response to the overwhelming problems the American people have endured.

But if my colleagues are still not convinced, I would ask that they listen to the Department of Transportation's own Inspector General. In a report to Congress on April 20, he recommended that the Department ``take a more active role in airline customer service issues.'' This amendment would turn the Inspector General's recommendation into law.

Mr. Chairman, we stand here today prepared to pass a far-reaching and well-thought-out bill that addresses many of the critical infrastructure and technological shortcomings facing the airlines, airports and the FAA, as well as adding several critical safeguards for airline passengers. My amendment would add another layer of protection for customers that is practical and fair. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the chairman of the subcommittee.