[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4170-4175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     THIRTY-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here 
once again with the 30-Something Working Group, and I want to thank the 
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for 
giving us the opportunity to spend some time talking tonight about the 
priorities of the American people.
  I am thrilled this evening to be joined, as we come to the end of 
Women's History Month, to be joined by my fellow freshman colleague and 
also my roommate while here in Washington, D.C., the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to join the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, we spend a great deal of time 
at the end of the day talking about some of the frustrations about this 
job. The gentlewoman from Illinois and I, two of the few women Members, 
particularly in the freshman class that we were elected to, as were 
you, Madam Speaker, in 2004, who are moms with young kids that are 
trying to balance work and family. We find ourselves at home talking 
about that a lot.
  Ms. Bean, when you and I are sharing frustrations and stories about 
concerns that we have and that our constituents have, I find that we 
often end up talking about it in the context of our kids and the 
children of our constituents. I know you have a story that you talk to 
your constituents about, and you were telling me about the seventh 
graders in your district that you were talking to. I think that is a 
really neat story you should share.
  Ms. BEAN. I mentioned it on the floor briefly that I had been with 
some kids several weeks back. More recently I mentioned to my colleague 
we were talking about Internet safety. I am the parent of teenagers, my 
daughters are 13 and 15, so the issue of Internet safety has been an 
important issue. I have been visiting middle schools to talk about some 
of the challenges that they face.
  So we went to talk about Internet safety with the middle schoolers; 
and whenever I talk with middle schoolers, we also have a little bit of 
a civics lesson.
  Many seventh graders I know in Illinois, as well as around the 
Nation, are studying the Constitution. I was pretty impressed with the 
quality of education our children are receiving because they had not 
expected me to ask them about it. They thought we were just going to 
talk about Internet safety, and I asked them about the Constitution and 
the Preamble, and if any of them had the Preamble to the Constitution 
memorized, and they did.

                              {time}  2215

  And they did. And I asked them to come on up. All the hands went up 
to be part of our little civics class. And they came up, and we took 
that preamble apart.
  We talked about in order to form a more perfect union, you know, what 
does that really mean and they understood that that meant trying to 
make our Nation better. We talked about providing for the common 
defense, and how that meant that we not only needed strong national 
security, but we also needed to protect our citizens when natural 
disasters could come as well. And we talked about the general welfare 
and the economy and how their parents and their neighbors and their 
community needed a strong economic environment so that they could 
provide for themselves.
  We also talked about domestic tranquility. Some of them admittedly 
did think that that meant, don't hit your sister, so we went through 
that.
  But we also talked about fiscal responsibility. And one of the things 
that was alarming to them, and it was intended to be and to create a 
discussion with them, was to talk about the national debt, which is now 
over $8 trillion. And I shared with these seventh graders that their 
share of our national debt is now over $27,000 each. And they were very 
displeased to hear that that was their share of national debt and said, 
Well, why aren't you guys spending less?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think you need to stress that again. How 
much is every American's share of the deficit?
  Ms. BEAN. Every American's share of the deficit is over $27,000 of 
our over-

[[Page 4171]]

$8 trillion of national debt; and as you now know, we are raising the 
debt ceiling so we can bring that up to $9 trillion. And it was really 
frightening to these kids.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We talk about the deficit quite a bit in our 
30-something hour, and one of the ways that I sort of try to boil it 
down, because, you know, when you think about the number 8 trillion, 
especially, I mean, I imagine you were talking to seventh graders, and 
8 trillion is a really big number. Even $27,000 is a big number.
  Ms. BEAN. It is a big number when you are talking to 12-year-olds.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So when we are on the floor here, I often try 
to boil down what those numbers mean in more simplistic terms. I can 
tell you that we, what we do is we talk about how it relates to 
someone's household budget. And you know, of course, families, millions 
and millions of families across this country struggle every day to 
balance their budgets to make sure that they are not spending more than 
they take in. And they are hoping that they are not racking up credit 
card debt and trying to balance all the needs that their family has, 
plus, you know, hopefully buying a few things that maybe aren't 
necessarily a need, but are just a want. I mean, that is something that 
in America we all strive to be able to accomplish.
  But unfortunately, in Washington, when we got here, we found that 
there seems to be, between the two sides here, an ongoing struggle over 
whether or not it makes sense, amazingly, to not spend more than you 
take in.
  Ms. BEAN. Well it is interesting how these seventh graders 
demonstrated greater fiscal sense than this Congress has been able to 
demonstrate, because we talked to them about debt and how essentially 
what we have been doing, to your point, to put it in their terms, would 
be like me, as a mom, getting a credit card in my daughters' names, 
okay, and going out and buying things for myself and then saying to 
them as soon as they are old enough to work, now you get to pay for all 
the things I bought myself.
  That is essentially what we are doing to future generations. And they 
said, Well, that is just not right. And they were right in 
understanding that.
  I also asked them, What would you do to not have debt; and they said, 
Well, spend less than you have. Pretty simple answer, but one that 
without PAYGO budget rules, which we once on a bipartisan basis adhered 
to in this body and were able to get ourselves to the largest surplus 
in the history of this Congress, we have now gone, since we have thrown 
out PAYGO rules and we are not requiring ourselves as a body of 
Congress to be more fiscally responsible, we now have the largest 
deficit in the history of the Nation, and that is pretty 
unconscionable.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just to further explain the concept of PAYGO, 
we, as Democrats, have repeatedly introduced amendments and other 
proposals that would reestablish those PAYGO rules, the pay-as-you-go 
rules, and we have supported them. We have put all of our votes up on 
the board here that shows where we are versus where our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are, and Democrats have consistently 
supported returning to pay as you go, returning to the time when we 
didn't have to talk about a deficit, where we had a surplus, which was 
just before this, the beginning of this administration's tenure. And it 
would be wonderful if we could get back to talking about how we were 
going to spend the surplus, which we wish we had, when now, 
unfortunately, we are mired in debt and mired in deficit
  Ms. BEAN. Very much so. I mean, what PAYGO really did is, it forced 
tougher decisions. It forced a greater degree of transparency and 
honesty with the public because it forced us to say, if we are going to 
spend more on a particular program, where was that money going to come 
from. And that has really gone away. And with the lack of that, there 
are a lot of false promises to the public about the reality of our 
false accounting.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You just can't have it all. I mean, the other 
story that I share with people when we are here on the floor during 
this 30-something hour is it is like when we talk to our kids. You 
know, sometimes my 6-year-old twins will say, Mom, you know, I really 
want, we will be in the toy store and they want everything in every 
aisle. And, you know, gosh, I would love to buy them everything in 
every aisle. But often, I have to say ``no,'' and then I try to explain 
to them, you know, our budget, the money that mom and dad earn really 
only enables us to afford to buy you some of these things. You can't 
have everything you want.
  Ms. BEAN. Exactly. It is so fun to be here with you because this is 
my first time joining you in your 30-something colloquy, because at 44 
I am a little outside of the age span, so I appreciate you inviting me 
today. But it is fun for us to be able to talk about our children on 
the House floor where we haven't done that before.
  But I think there are some very strong parallels in what you are 
saying, in that oftentimes I think in our roles in Congress with the 
public, with our constituents, we have to bring a little bit of tough 
love to the equation the way we do with our children. We can't just 
tell people what they want to hear, but what they need to hear, which 
is the reality of our fiscal challenges.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, boy, as moms, we certainly have a lot of 
practice at that.
  Ms. BEAN. At the tough love.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Tough love is something that unfortunately the 
word ``no'' gets thrown around a lot more than I would like, than my 
kids would like to hear. ``No'' doesn't seem to exist in this body, at 
least under this leadership in the Congress.
  Ms. BEAN. Well, that is why PAYGO is an important thing, because it 
creates an environment that forces those kind of tough decisions and 
forces a more honest dialogue with the public about what is affordable 
and what is not. Absolutely.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to go back if you don't mind. I want to 
go back to the chart that I was referring to earlier.
  One of the things that we do try to do, and I am pleased to see that 
our colleagues from Florida and Ohio have joined us now. But when we 
talk about $8 trillion, and when we talk about what a billion means, we 
have come up with a chart that kind of tries to boil that down. This 
chart will help people; it has helped people understand the notion of 
how much a billion is.
  A billion hours ago, humans were making the first tools in the Stone 
Age. A billion seconds ago, it was 1975 and the last American troops 
had pulled out of Vietnam. A billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D., and 
the Chinese first invented paper. And then, of course, under the 
leadership of this Congress, and this administration, a billion dollars 
ago was only 3 hours and 32 minutes at the rate that the government 
spends money today. That is a startling contrast, and I have some 
excellent staff work that went into developing that, that figured that 
out and boiled down what a billion is.
  But when you think about it that way, that means that we are spending 
money at a startling clip and that given how much in other definitions 
it took to get, it takes to get to a billion, it is really amazing when 
you look at it in these terms.
  Ms. BEAN. I think you have another chart, if I am correct, that talks 
about what that means in terms of our spending priorities and that 
while we are spending so much on interest--you do have it--it 
essentially shows that we are spending more on interest on the debt 
that we have created than we are on education, on homeland security and 
on veterans' benefits. And I don't think the American public fully 
appreciate what those opportunity costs are, that that lack of fiscal 
discipline has consequences.
  And, sadly, we are not moving in the right direction as we look at 
the 2006 budget, which only projects a $423 billion spending deficit, 
but it is considerably more than that when we factor in AMT fixes, and 
when we factor in the cost of the war, which we stopped counting in 
October, even though that is running at $6 billion a week, that we

[[Page 4172]]

are not even projecting the real deficits, that this chart is going to 
look worse if we continue down this path.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. And I would like to 
welcome my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ryan
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As you are talking about the interest on the debt, 
we have got to get the money from somewhere; and as we show, night in 
and night out, here on the 30-something group, we are borrowing a good 
deal of this money from China. And this is what has happened since 
President Bush took over, Madam Speaker.
  In 2000, we borrowed $62 billion from China, and in 2005 it grew 
exponentially to $257 billion that we borrowed from China. So this is 
significant in so many ways, as the gentlewoman from Chicago, from 
Illinois stated, that we are paying the interest on the debt. And that 
is money that is not going to education. That is money that is not 
going to homeland security. That is money that is not going for health 
care, veterans, whatever the case may be.
  So that is bad enough, but we are borrowing it from China, so now we 
are paying them interest on money and they are taking that and putting 
it into their state-owned companies and hurting American manufacturing 
and a lot of American small businesses that I am sure are in your 
district, as they are in mine. And all we are saying is, this is a 
competitive global economy. We can't have this disadvantage here of 
where we are going to borrow the money and they are going to take the 
interest out of the American economy and pump it back in, so they are 
winning twice.
  Ms. BEAN. I think you make a valid point. Americans are very 
uncomfortable with that foreign debt, particularly that ratio, because 
it minimizes our leverage in other areas and I think even has national 
security implications over the long term that make us all 
uncomfortable.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely.
  We have another chart that we talk about. The amount of debt that has 
been racked up in just the last few years, just in the last 4 or 5 
years is actually greater than all of the 42 administrations before 
this one. I mean, that is a truly astonishing statistic. I was really 
incredibly surprised about that.
  We also try to boil down the difference between the debt and the 
deficit. The deficit is related to the fact that we spend more than we 
take in.
  Ms. BEAN. More than we are bringing in, absolutely.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. The debt is the amount of money we 
borrow from other countries in order to remain fiscally solvent. I 
mean, that is truly amazing that we have so much debt that is owned by 
foreign nations.
  And I don't know if the gentleman from Florida is ready to jump in 
yet, but he has an amazing chart, as well, that shows the United States 
of America and the percentage of the debt that is owned by other 
nations.
  Ms. BEAN. I have some of those figures in the meantime, while you get 
the chart. It is actually, four lenders currently hold a total of 
$2.174 trillion of our public debt. Compare this to only 23 billion in 
foreign holdings in 1993. The top 10 current lenders are Japan at $682 
billion; China at $249 billion; the UK at $223 billion; Caribbean 
banking centers, $115 billion; Taiwan, 71 billion; and it goes on and 
on.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is just, we have got to get a handle on 
this. We have to restore some fiscal sanity. We have to put on some 
brakes and we need a little tough mother love. Maybe it is just that we 
need to bring a few more moms into this Chamber and we will have a 
little more tough love, because apparently the folks here are either 
out of practice, or I don't know, maybe the discipline around their 
homes isn't, you know, is not so strong.
  Ms. BEAN. That is absolutely true. When I talk to the seventh graders 
and the middle schoolers and I say to them, Well, what would happen if 
your parents spend more money than they have? And they said, We will 
get debt. And I said, Then what would happen? And they said, Well, then 
people would start taking our stuff and then we might even go bankrupt.

                              {time}  2230

  And, again, they understand that we have not demonstrated more 
responsibility as a Congress, which, as I know, is frustrating for the 
American people.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Actually this is a little bit of a leap, but 
you and I sit on the Financial Services Committee together, and I know 
that you have been very involved in the data security issue because, in 
addition to the concern that Americans have over our debt and our 
deficit, they are also very concerned, and I know my constituents talk 
to me about this all the time, about the financial information that is 
out there about them personally is being compromised on a regular 
basis. And I know that you have really been a leader in that effort, 
and it would good for you to talk about it.
  Ms. BEAN. It has been a big issue for constituents of all ages. We 
initially focused pretty much on seniors in the suburban districts that 
I represent because they have very much been a target; so what was done 
was we tried to introduce the legislation that is now moving through 
from our Financial Services Committee that we both serve on which will 
require, in addition to financial institutions, those database brokers 
that hold that personal financial data to have to let consumers know if 
there is a breach of that security information. But what we have found 
is there are other Internet challenges beyond data security in that 
regard. And I mentioned the Internet safety issue, and that has been a 
big issue that I have also been focusing on with both parents with some 
evening forums that we have done in our district and also with students 
themselves.
  As I mentioned, when I was with those middle schoolers and I asked 
them, How many of you communicate on the Internet, not only with 
friends but with strangers on sites like the myspace.com and others out 
there, 75 percent of the hands go up, and we are talking 12-year-olds. 
And then you ask them, Do you appreciate the dangers? Only half of 
those hands went back up. So we were there to remind them of the things 
they have to be careful about.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is something that, with my 6-year-olds 
and 2-year-old coming up behind them, my husband and I are already 
talking about how to safeguard the information that they have access to 
and make sure we are aware and keep them and their computer in close 
proximity to us because there is so much out there. The Internet is an 
amazing thing, but there is so much out there. And whether it is data 
security or the security of our kids, we really have to make sure that 
we strike a balance, which is what you have been fighting for, and I 
have as well and other Democratic members on our committee. We have to 
strike a balance between making sure that business has the ability to 
operate and function and that we not unnecessarily restrict commerce on 
the Internet.
  Ms. BEAN. That we inform families how to protect themselves and their 
communities. So I know we are not the only ones doing forums. I know 
many communities and schools on their own are beginning to roll out 
those kinds of educational awareness programs, and we want to continue 
to support that, absolutely.
  We should talk briefly about, since it is the end of Women's History 
Month, whom we just had dinner with.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. One of the most 
amazing things about having the privilege that we have to represent our 
communities in Washington is the people that we get to meet and 
interact with. And you and I, along with the other members of the 
bipartisan Women's Caucus, had an opportunity tonight to have dinner 
with former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever to serve 
on the United States Supreme Court.
  Ms. BEAN. It was such an honor.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It was incredible. And I mentioned to her that 
I was 13 when she was first nominated by then-President Reagan and that 
my parents raised me to believe that

[[Page 4173]]

young women, young girls could grow up and truly be anything they 
wanted to be and that was my first memory that that was the most clear 
example of that being true. And it was just a thrill to be able to 
share that with her tonight.
  Ms. BEAN. It was so inspiring to hear you talk about how it affected 
you and how it affected all of us, regardless of all our ages, all 
these women Members of Congress who were so inspired by Sandra Day 
O'Connor and her leadership, her professionalism, and her dignity with 
which she served on the Supreme Court and what an inspiration to women 
she was. I was excited too that my daughters, who you know are here, 
not in the House Chamber at the moment, but who are here during their 
spring break vacation to join Mom out here in Washington and get a 
chance to meet her as well. I know for them that is going to be 
something they will remember for the rest of their lives. It was so 
exciting.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. And I think it is only 70 women 
that serve with us in the House of Representatives out of 435 Members. 
You boil that down even further, there is only a handful of us who are 
moms with young children. There are only four of us that are younger 
than 40 years old. The thing that sticks in my mind from the time that 
we were elected 1\1/2\ years ago now is that story that they shared 
with us when we were at our orientation initially. If you recall, there 
is a statistic that they described there. There have been a little less 
than 12,000 people in American history who have served in the United 
States House of Representatives in all the 230-year history. And of 
that number, only 211 of them have been women and 70 are serving now.
  So as we close out Women's History Month, Madam Speaker, and you are 
one of those women members in the Women's Caucus, and I remember 
talking with you, Madam Speaker, actually about when we heard that 
information. It was really astonishing.
  Ms. BEAN. It was a number that reached out and grabbed you. Out of 
12,000 total, only 200-plus were women.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 211 women out of almost 12,000 people.
  Ms. BEAN. Even with all that progress, I know it sometimes is 
shocking to some of those high school and middle school students that 
we do civics classes with. I know you do as I do, and I will say to 
them just out of curiosity, What percentage of the Congress do you 
think are women? And usually they will say 40 percent or 35 percent, 
and they are shocked to find it is still only 14 percent.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It shows you that we have really come a long 
way, but it really demonstrates why we need to continue to have Women's 
History Month and how it is so important to show young girls who are 
coming up behind us that they have the opportunity. They have to reach 
out and grab it. And it is our responsibility to pull other young women 
up on the platform with us now that we have been able to have an 
opportunity like this, not to be discriminatory against our male 
colleagues whom we are sharing the Chamber with this evening.
  And actually the gentleman from Florida is the dad of a young girl 
who is a wonderful young woman and works hard in school, and I know 
that especially since you are the son of one of the House of 
Representatives' most revered women, former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, 
that surely you have something to add at the end of Women's History 
Month.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We definitely appreciate the contributions of 
women. If it weren't for women, there would be no men. And the way I 
look at it, being a mamma's boy, Madam Speaker, and I will admit to 
that even though I am a big rusty Congressman now, we appreciate all 
the contributions of women. And it is definitely good having women in 
the House, in this House, and in the U.S. Senate.
  I think it is also important to reflect on the future, the 
opportunities. We talk about innovation here within our caucus. We look 
for a bipartisan way of approaching that to make sure that we can have 
more engineers. There are very few women engineers that are in higher 
education right now, and we have to make sure that they have access and 
opportunity. We do not want women or men to go overseas to work when we 
should have jobs here in the United States of America. So when I look 
at the opportunities and the success that women have had in the past, I 
know that in the future we still have to fight and make sure that we 
have inclusion, and that is important.
  Madam Speaker, I am also proud to say that there are a number of 
individuals, younger girls, that are trying to develop themselves right 
now educationally, and we need to make sure that we provide them 
opportunities for the arts, opportunities in the area of physical 
education, and to allow a childhood to be broader than just taking a 
standardized test. And that creativity is going to be important.
  But I am so glad you and Congresswoman Bean were really getting 
heavy, and I wanted to just jump in a little bit because I grew up in a 
household with three women, my mother and my two sisters; and, of 
course, you know I have my wife and my daughter and my son. So we look 
forward to making this celebration even greater and greater every time, 
but also we have to be mindful as policymakers of making sure that we 
allow women and young girls to be able to have opportunities greater 
than women before them.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How about the amazing experience we had 2 
weeks ago with the President of Liberia, the first woman president of 
an African nation who addressed the joint session?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Words are inadequate to even describe the way 
she explained to us her struggle as a woman, and it is hard for Liberia 
and the United States to be able to reflect on what her life was all 
about. She was sharing with us here, Madam Speaker, that you see the 
glory; but let me share the story with you and how she still has one 
foot in on the uneducated woman in Liberia and Africa and the Harvard-
educated woman one foot in the United States. And I think it is 
important for us to remember that we have to remember when we have the 
opportunity to lead. And I think she is grounded in that, and I think 
Liberia is going to be better because of it.
  And she shared with us that she didn't want our pity, but she wanted 
to be able to receive our assistance because they will perform. She 
talked about the reforms she has made in her administration, making 
sure that she has accountability, making sure that she wipes out and 
stamps out cronyism, and to make sure that children can smile again, 
and that is important. It is important to build an environment in a 
community where children feel safe of where they live and where they go 
to school and all of their contributions.
  So I was excited about her visit. I got down here a little early so 
that I would get a chance to shake her hand; and I look forward, Madam 
Speaker, hopefully, that we can help Liberia, one of the true allies of 
the United States of America, and has been so for a very long time. As 
you know, Liberia is one of the countries where slaves, once they were 
freed, went back to Liberia, and many of them have American last names 
because they brought them back from slavery. So we do have a connection 
with that country.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It was incredibly moving for all of us. And 
she didn't mention it during her speech, but it was very fitting that 
she spoke during Women's History Month. And I am not certain of this, 
but she is certainly one, if not the only, woman leader to ever address 
a joint session of Congress, unless Margaret Thatcher had previously 
addressed a joint session. I have not found anyone who actually could 
recall a woman addressing a joint session. So it was just really 
historic in so many different ways.
  I really also thought about how we could take several pages from her 
lesson book because a lot of things that she talked about, making sure 
that you did not only look out for the privileged and making sure that 
you thought about the needs of young children and young girls in 
particular who needed to get an education and have hope and 
opportunity. In this country so often it

[[Page 4174]]

appears as though the leadership in this body and in this country now 
has had a lot of disregard, quite a bit of disregard, for those things. 
And I am certainly hopeful that our colleagues were listening very 
carefully to her remarks and took them to heart.
  Ms. BEAN. You remind me again of being back in the classroom with 
these kids and talking about that Preamble to the Constitution which 
talks also about the decisions we make for ourselves and our posterity 
and how they even understood that the decisions we make as Americans, 
whether in Congress or at home in our communities, affect generations 
of future Americans.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just to shift gears a little bit, recently we 
have been talking about homeland security quite a bit, and I am not 
sure if you had a chance to talk about that with the seventh graders 
when you were in the classroom with them, but since we just came off a 
week, and, Mr. Meek, I know that you spent some time talking to your 
constituents as well, I was really struck when I was home last week 
during our recess by how many more of my constituents appealed to me to 
come back to Washington and make sure that I continue to fight to 
improve our national security, that their confidence in this 
government's ability to keep them safe has really been shaken on so 
many levels, not just in terms of protecting them from terrorists and 
from outside actors, but just generally had their confidence shaken in 
their government's ability to function.

                              {time}  2245

  I mean, the culture of corruption that has been hanging over this 
institution, sadly, and this administration, really has shaken the 
confidence, I think, of our constituents to their core.
  We really need to return to a time when we can restore that 
confidence, let them know that not all of the people in this government 
are in it for the wrong reasons, and that, in particular, we do put a 
very high priority on our national security.
  Ms. BEAN. Absolutely.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that the port deal that was recently 
proposed, and, seemingly, not had an interest in even a 45-day security 
review with a country that had been implicated in some way, in the 9/11 
attacks, that is the kind of thing I heard about when I went home.
  I heard about how they are really deeply concerned about the lack of 
port security. I mean, we have invested now, we have third-party 
validators that we talk about here on this floor.
  Mr. Meek, when I went down to the port of Miami after the revelation 
came about the DPW port deal, the port personnel there, in our home 
port, talked to me about the $18 billion that has been spent since 9/11 
improving airport security, which is a good thing, and they are happy 
about that, and the less than $700 million that has been spent to 
improve our port security, the less than 6 percent of U.S. cargo that 
comes through our ports that is physically inspected, 95 percent not 
inspected.
  The general lack of confidence in our homeland security, in our 
government's ability to do the right thing on all fronts, is really, I 
think, at least from when I went home, something that is really 
disturbing them.
  Ms. BEAN. Across the country, not just in Florida, but I think 
homeland security is a big issue across the board. I hear it in my town 
hall meetings and in the forums I had in my district as well.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, the way I look at this whole homeland 
security issue, and I am concerned, and I was over in the Senate, had 
an opportunity to sit down with some reporters, with Democratic Whip 
Steny Hoyer and also Senator Schumer from New York and some others, and 
I think it is important that we look at this for what it is.
  The line is 95 percent of the containers that come into our ports are 
not checked. That is the real issue here. We can't really jump up and 
down about the 5, some say 6. I think it is important for us to 
remember, Madam Speaker, that this bipartisan effort that we should 
have as it relates to homeland security, I speak from the standpoint of 
being a member of the Homeland Security Committee, having the 
opportunity to serve on the oversight subcommittee and management and 
integration.
  I can tell you right now, for us to go to 100 percent check is not a 
hard thing for us to do. But we have to set our priorities on what we 
want to do and how we want to do it, and when we want to do it.
  I think the American people want to be protected, and I think it is 
important that we provide them that opportunity. As you know, we cry 
out for bipartisan support in this. I will tell you, Democrat, 
Republican, Independent, Green Party, you name it, any individual that 
is thinking about voting, I can tell you this right now. They believe 
in the security of our country. They don't care who brings about this 
security, who appropriates this money, they just want the job done.
  We don't need a situation where a container is being shipped from the 
port of Mobile, Alabama, or through Illinois, what have you, and end 
up, God forbid, some sort of chemical agent is in this container 
because it was not checked.
  Too many people in the world know that we don't check 95 percent of 
our containers, and that is dangerous on both sides of the ball. I 
think we are far beyond politics when we start talking about making 
sure that we increase our containers, container security and screening 
our containers. There are other countries that have 100 percent check.
  I think that if other countries can do it, I know that the United 
States of America can do it. But it is all about our priorities. It is 
about how we set them, and it is about how we work together.
  Unfortunately, we have some difficulty in that area right now, but 
hopefully we will be able to improve on that through pressure from the 
American people.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Meek, the thing that keeps coming to mind 
when I think about the comparison between the stress that has been put 
on airport security versus port security, if you ask, if you go out 
into the country and ask most Americans the difference that they have 
seen since 9/11 and in security in general, basically about the only 
thing that Americans could say that they could identify is they have to 
remove their shoes before they walk through a magnetometer at the 
airport.
  I think most people really feel today that we should not be resting 
the sum total of our national security on taking your shoes off as you 
go through a metal detector. American people expect quite a bit more 
than that when it comes to homeland security, especially if you live 
near a port, like my district includes two, Port Everglades and the 
Port of Miami.
  We have so many, so many potential openings around this country, and 
vulnerabilities. To focus all of our attention on only the ones that 
are most visible that provide the leadership here, the ability to say, 
see, we did that, we have taken care of that, and just provide surface 
reassurance about homeland security, that is the difference between 
words and action.
  It is the difference between nice commentary in speeches and actually 
backing up those words with action.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think the great 
example that we have used here a million times is Katrina.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly.
  Mr. RYAN of OHIO. You guys are from Florida. We are from the Midwest, 
so we don't have hurricanes.
  Ms. BEAN. Absolutely.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have a ton of snow, but no hurricanes. The fact 
that this government had days to prepare for Katrina and couldn't 
figure out how to do it. Now, we are talking about something that may 
happen that we will not have 5 days' notice to plan for it. It is 
difficult for us to understand, but this needs to be addressed, and it 
needs to be addressed immediately.
  Because the fact of the matter is, the American people were counting 
on us.

[[Page 4175]]

Our first obligation here is to make sure that we are protecting the 
American people and to have 95 percent of the cargo not inspected, I 
think, is a dereliction of duty on our part. I will be happy to yield 
to our friend.
  Ms. BEAN. I think I am going to yield back the balance of my time, if 
that is okay. But I want to thank you, my colleagues, for letting me 
join you during this 30-something hour, my first time joining you even 
though you let an older Member join you.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, you have two beautiful young daughters 
waiting in the cloakroom for you.
  Ms. BEAN. That is exactly right. That is why I am yielding back my 
time. I appreciate you letting me join you today, in the interest of 
not only my kids, but the seventh graders we talked about today. It has 
been very important.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It was wonderful to have you join us. I will 
see you at home.

                          ____________________