[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1594-H1601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EVALUATING THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST 100 DAYS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin discussing today 
the first 100 days of the Bush Administration. I know that over the 
next week you will probably hear from both Democrats as well as from 
the President about the first 100 days, because

[[Page H1595]]

traditionally the first 100 days of a Presidency have been a sort of 
benchmark for judging the President.
  I believe the actual day when Mr. Bush, President Bush, will have 
been in office for 100 days is next Monday, April 30th.
  The first 100 days has been a useful yardstick for measuring new 
Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt's first term. What I would like to 
do is give my analysis of why where I think we are.
  During the campaign, the President promised to be a compassionate 
conservative. I am sure many remember that saying. He said he would 
unite the country behind a common agenda. He said he would promote 
prosperity with a purpose and be a reformer, that he would be a 
reformer with results determined to leave no child behind.
  I feel very strongly, Madam Speaker, that, to date, President Bush 
has failed to back up this rhetoric that he used during the campaign 
with any actions. This is an administration of, by and for the special 
interests. I see the oil interests, I see the big mining interests, I 
see them, the defense contractors, holding sway; not the average 
person.
  The President has made a string of decisions that, if you look at it, 
are extremely partisan, and I think a payback to the special interests 
who contributed to his campaign. I could go through a list of areas 
where I could point what I am saying out and be more specific, but I 
really wanted to focus, if I could, on two areas that are very 
important to me and I think to the average American, and that is the 
environment and, secondly, health care and health issues.
  Perhaps in no area has the President during these first 100 days been 
such a disappointment to me, and I think to the average American, than 
on environmental issues. I think many of us knew that he was not a real 
environmentalist and he was not going to be what we would like to see 
in terms of a real environmental President, but the reality has been 
much worse.
  The reality has been that he has determined in the last 3 months or 
so in these 100 days to roll back the clock on a lot of environmental 
protection measures that were very important and that were certainly 
the backbone for progressive legislation and improvements to the 
environment that we have seen in the last 30 years since Earth Day. I 
just want to give you an example, if I could, of why I say that, and I 
will start, if I could, with some of the energy-related issues.
  The Bush Administration in the first 100 days has signalled to the 
rest of the world that it does not really care about global climate 
change. We know that the President basically has said that he is not 
going to adhere to the Kyoto climate treaty. There was a real question 
about whether or not this administration would even participate in any 
further talks on climate change. Although Mrs. Whitman, the EPA 
Administrator, did say over the weekend that they would continue to 
talk, it is clear that they have no intention of proceeding with the 
Kyoto Treaty and basically have told all the signers to that treaty to 
forget it.
  The President has also told the Congress that emission controls will 
not include carbon dioxide. During the course of his campaign, he said 
that he would address air emission controls for a number of pollutants 
to try to improve air quality, but we were told about a month ago that 
that would not include carbon dioxide, which is certainly one of the 
most important pollutants and one of the ones that has the most 
negative impact on air quality.
  President Bush has also made it quite clear to the general public 
that his energy goals will stress more production of fossil fuels, most 
notably drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he will 
not stress conservation, increased technological efficiency, or the use 
of renewables. The budget that the President sent us a couple weeks ago 
specifically cut research on renewables, solar power, wind power, in 
half.
  I mention these as just an example, because I think that the issue of 
energy and source of energy and whether there is going to be enough 
energy is certainly a crucial one. We know that the price of gasoline 
continues to go up. We are told it might be, who knows, $2.00, $2.50 a 
gallon possibly by the summer.
  So we need to have an energy policy. But to suggest that sort of the 
backbone of the energy policy is drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, and we are not going to address global climate change, 
we are not going to address carbon dioxide, that the only answer is 
more production rather than use of renewables and conservation, I think 
is an egregious mistake.
  Let me talk about some other environmental issues. I think personally 
that one of the most important areas where we need to make progress is 
by cleaning up hazardous waste sites and also by making sure that our 
drinking water is safe. Yet we were told just a few weeks ago by this 
administration that the standards for arsenic in water, which are very 
high, meaning very weak, I should say, 50 parts per billion, would stay 
in place, and that the new standards that had been suggested by the 
Clinton Administration to reduce that 50 parts per billion down to 10 
parts per billion would not be implemented, that we needed another year 
or so to study the issue before we could possibly improve on the 
standards.
  That was a major, I think, disaster, because it affects drinking 
water quality. It affects the water that we drink, one of the basic 
proponents of life. I think it was also symptomatic of what we are 
going to see from this administration with regard to environmental 
concerns.
  In my subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
Subcommittee on Environmental and Hazardous Materials, we had the EPA 
administrator, Mrs. Whitman, come in and testify a few weeks ago, the 
day after the President indicated that he was not going to enact 
stronger arsenic standards, and she talked about the fact that there 
was a huge backlog of infrastructure needs for safe drinking water; in 
other words, money that the Federal Government would need to give to 
the States or to the towns to upgrade facilities so not only would you 
have hopefully better standards for drinking water, but you would also 
have good pipes and good process for bringing it to your house so that 
you can drink it safely.
  When we got the Bush budget proposal a couple weeks ago after that 
hearing, lo and behold, we find that the amount of money set aside for 
safe drinking water is level-funded. In other words, it does not even 
meet the authorization level or any of the future needs that the EPA 
administrator talked about.
  So what we are seeing now is that not only is the President 
implementing either through regulatory action or inaction methods that 
would cut back on environmental protection, but he is not providing the 
money in the budget to do anything significant about our energy needs 
or about our environmental concerns.
  Another example with regard to environmental concerns is the 
Superfund. My state has more Superfund sites than any other state. 
There is a great need around the country to continue cleanups pursuant 
to the Superfund program of very severe hazardous waste conditions.
  What does the President Bush's budget do? It suggests we are going to 
provide the money to clean up about 65 sites this next fiscal year, 
whereas in the last 4 years under the previous administration we had 
targeted about 85 sites per year to clean up. So cutbacks in the money 
for the Superfund program.
  Nothing in the budget to provide the corporate tax that would fund 
the Superfund program, so in another year or two there would not be any 
money in the Superfund trust fund to continue to pay for cleanups.
  The list goes on and on. We just passed last year in the last few 
days of the Clinton administration the Beaches Act. This was a bill 
that says that each State has to test their water quality before they 
let anybody swim on the beach and they have to close the beach if it 
does not meet certain standards and post signs saying you cannot use 
the beach because the water is dirty and authorize $30 million annually 
to pay for that program, to give grants to the States so they would be 
able to use it to do the water quality monitoring. Very important.
  The summer is almost here, another couple of months. People do not 
want to swim in dirty water any more than they want to drink polluted 
water. Lo

[[Page H1596]]

and behold, the budget comes out, and instead of the $30 million that 
is authorized, we see $2 or $3 million appropriated for the Beaches 
Act.
  This is what we are seeing over and over again. We are seeing an 
effort to cut back on environmental programs, to not provide the money 
for environmental programs, to eliminate progressive regulations that 
were put in place by the Clinton administration. And if I had to look 
at environmental and energy issues alone, without looking at anything 
else, I would say that this first 100 days of the Bush administration 
has been a total failure and totally out of sync with what the American 
people want and totally in tune with what the special interests want. 
Because, after all, what average citizen or what good government group 
or what citizens group would say that they do not want safer drinking 
water or they do not want to spend up money to clean up hazardous waste 
sites or do ocean water quality monitoring? Nobody. The only people 
against these things are the mining interests, the oil interests, the 
polluters, who obviously have the President's ear because they were the 
major contributors to his campaign.
  So when the President promised to be a compassionate conservative, I 
do not think that that meant that he was going to cut back on 
environmental protection. When he said that he would unite the country 
behind a common agenda, I would assume that that common agenda would be 
protecting the environment, because it is very important to most 
people. But, no, that is not what we are seeing. Then he said he would 
promote prosperity with a purpose and be a reformer with results and 
leave no child behind. Frankly, I think a lot of children are going to 
be left behind if they have to deal with some of these environmental 
concerns.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, I want to go to the next area that I think is just as important 
in evaluating the President's 100 days, and that is health care. During 
the course of the campaign, probably the number one issue that we heard 
about from both President Bush and his Democratic opponent was health 
care. The President said that when he was the governor of Texas, he let 
a Patients' Bill of Rights for HMO reform become law. He actually did 
not sign it, but he said that he supported the Texas Patients' Bill of 
Rights to try to improve and reform HMOs. The President said he would 
agree to have something like what they have in Texas, the Patients' 
Bill of Rights HMO reform, enacted into Federal law, that he had no 
problem with the Texas legislation, and if we could do that nationally, 
that would be fine, he would support it.
  President Bush also said during the course of the campaign that he 
wanted to expand Medicare to include a prescription drug program for 
seniors, because we know that seniors increasingly cannot afford the 
price of drugs; the price of prescription drugs continue to go up. It 
is a bigger part of their household budget, their weekly and daily 
expense, and we need to do something about it. President Bush said 
during the campaign, oh, yes, I recognize that we must address this 
issue, and I would be in favor of expanding Medicare to include a 
prescription drug benefit.
  The President also recognized during the campaign that there were an 
increasing number of Americans who had no health insurance, something 
like 40 million, now maybe it is 45 million Americans who have no 
health insurance, no health coverage. He said that he wanted to go 
about improving the situation with regard to that as well and maybe 
come up with some sort of tax credit or some kind of program through 
community health clinics to improve the situation for those who have no 
health insurance.
  Now, again, I would maintain that that entire health care agenda has 
not only fallen flat on its face in the last 100 days, but it has not 
even been addressed effectively by President Bush in the first 100 
days. It almost disappeared from the radar screen. We do not hear about 
it any more.
  Let me just develop that a little bit on the three health care issues 
that I mentioned, first with regard to a Patients' Bill of Rights. 
Within days of the inauguration of President Bush, a bipartisan group 
of Senators and House Members, Democrats and Republicans, got together 
and introduced a bill in both Houses, Senator McCain and Senator 
Kennedy in the Senate, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a Republican, introduced a new Patients' Bill of 
Rights bill with a lot of cosponsors, including myself; both Houses, 
within days of the inauguration, exactly the same as the Texas bill 
that President Bush had talked about during the campaign. No 
difference. I would defy anyone to suggest that it was any different in 
any significant way from what exists now in the State of Texas and is 
working very well.
  What have we heard? We have heard statements from the White House 
that they do not like that bill, it not acceptable. They do not really 
say why. We have heard statements from the White House saying, we are 
going to come up with our own proposal, but we have not seen it yet. We 
have heard statements from the White House suggesting that maybe they 
like some of the other proposals that have been put out there by those 
who are not as oriented towards reforming HMOs, but not even any real 
suggestion as to which of those bills they like.
  So in this case, with the Patients' Bill of Rights, I would maintain 
that basically, the President has taken it off the radar screen. A 
Patients' Bill of Rights, HMO reform, was so crucial during the 
campaign that this was one of the first things that President Bush was 
going to address. But we are almost at the 100 days on Monday, and he 
has not, to my knowledge, done anything significant to suggest that he 
even wants to come to common ground on this issue, or even make some 
suggestions about what we should do in an effective way.
  This Patients' Bill of Rights, the bipartisan bill that was 
introduced within the few days after his inauguration that was like the 
Texas bill, should have moved in both of these Houses and been on the 
President's desk already. The only reason it has not is because the 
President has not signaled what he wants or what he wants to do about 
it.
  This is a very important issue for Americans. People are denied care 
all the time by HMOs. People die, people have serious injuries, they 
are denied care, they do not have a way of addressing their grievances, 
they cannot go to court, they cannot go to an outside independent 
agency that would review why the HMO denied a particular operation or a 
particular medical device. I get these calls every day in my district 
office in New Jersey. We are not addressing it, and the President 
has not addressed it in a meaningful way during his first 100 days.

  Let me go to the second health care issue. I see I am being joined by 
some of my colleagues, which is great. Let me just go to the second 
health care issue, and then I would like to yield some time to one of 
my colleagues. Medicare prescription drugs. During the course of the 
campaign, the President said over and over again, this was a high 
priority, something that he wanted to address. He was not always clear 
as to exactly what he wanted to do. Most of the time he talked about a 
benefit primarily, if not exclusively, but primarily for low-income 
seniors, not an expansion of Medicare that would provide a benefit to 
all seniors, but just to low-income seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be honest that I have been very critical of that, 
because I think that since Medicare has always been for everyone, 
because we do not have an income test for Medicare; it does not matter 
how poor or how wealthy one is, one still gets it, I felt very strongly 
and continue to feel very strongly that a prescription drug benefit 
should be universal for every Medicare recipient. It should be 
affordable and it should be simply latched on to Medicare and handled 
by Medicare in the way that we traditionally do.
  But even if one disagrees with that, the fact of the matter is that I 
have not seen anything significant coming from this administration 
other than in a suggestion that in the budget there should be something 
like $150 million to pay for a Medicare benefit, and we have already 
been told by everyone, including our Republican colleagues, that that 
is not sufficient. But leaving that aside, we do not see any movement 
here. There has not been any

[[Page H1597]]

movement to mark up a prescription drug bill in the House, in the 
Senate, in any committee, and the President is not pushing for it. It 
is not a priority. All we heard from this President during the first 
100 days is that he wants a big, fat tax cut that is going to primarily 
benefit wealthy Americans, corporate interests, and actually is at the 
expense of the middle class and the little guy because it would take so 
much money away that we would be dipping into the Medicare Trust Fund, 
into the Social Security Trust Fund, and frankly, we would probably put 
ourselves back into a deficit situation and hurt the economy.
  So that is the legacy. I could go on and on, but I would like to 
yield to some of my colleagues. The legacy of this first 100 days is no 
attention to health care concerns, ripping apart environmental 
protection, actually being negative in terms of the environmental 
agenda, and just devoting all the time and the resources of the 
President to a huge tax cut that I think will hurt the economy and 
certainly not benefit the average American.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding me time.
  President Bush's 100 days, first 100 days. The President has hit that 
traditional landmark of his first 100 days. These 100 days have seen a 
charm offensive from the White House. He is able to pay lip service to 
the people, organizations and ideas.
  He can create a classic photo opportunity as evidenced with his 
recent appearance at the Boys and Girls Clubs in Wilmington, Delaware 
and other clubs throughout the country while a candidate. But as he 
posed with those children at these clubs, he took a red pen to their 
funding in the budget and completely eliminated Federal aid for the 
Boys and Girls Clubs.
  He bragged throughout the campaign about both his wife's and his 
support for reading and libraries, and then he snatched 70 percent of 
Reading Is Fundamental's budget.
  Is this compassionate? It is surely conservative. And, it highlights 
the hypocrisy of compassionate conservatism hidden behind a smirk 
screen.
  President Bush has assembled a cabinet of special interests. The 
average personal worth of the members of the cabinet is $11 million. He 
spent his first 100 days bowing to the special interests and 
corporations in America that financed his run for the White House. 
According to Democracy 21, President Bush received $35 million from 103 
soft money donors during the election. He is paying those people back 
with ambassadorships and placements to Federal posts and ignoring the 
working people of America.
  As President Bush pushes his huge tax cut for the wealthiest 
Americans, he is cutting social programs that people rely upon on a 
daily basis. The other body limited the tax cut at about the same time 
the Texas State Legislature was lobbying Health and Human Services 
Secretary Tommy Thompson for aid because of the shortfall caused by the 
tax cut Governor Bush gave to the people of Texas. We say ``no, 
thanks'' to the shortfalls and deficits and demand funding for programs 
that make our families and children safer, smarter and healthier.
  Bush's budget cuts also cuts the unemployment administration and 
benefit coverage at a time when both the general unemployment rate and 
the unemployment rate of workers eligible for unemployment insurance 
are expected to grow from 2001 to 2002.
  He cuts work force training and employment programs 9.5 percent, or 
$541 million, in training and employment services.
  He cuts Section 8 housing assistance vouchers by more than half, 
supported only 33,700 new vouchers across the country. The proposal 
also cuts tenant protection by $62 million and completely cuts tenant 
protection vouchers provided to disabled persons displaced from public 
housing designated for the elderly.
  The public housing construction and repairs are cut by $700 million, 
or 23 percent, after HUD found $22.5 billion in unmet capital repair 
needs in public housing. Let us get back to that again. Mr. Speaker, 
$22.5 million in unmet capital repair needs, and that program was cut 
by $700 million, or 23 percent.
  The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which funds antidrug and 
anticrime law enforcement and security in public housing. In 2001, this 
program was funded at $309 million. Specifically in the 11th 
Congressional District, I had a conversation with the head of the 
Public Housing Authority and she said to me, the elimination of the 
drug-elimination program funds from her budget was like eliminating the 
entire Police Department from the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing 
Authority budget.
  He went on to cut the Digital Divide Program of the Commerce 
Department, which provides computers and Internet connections to low-
income and underserved areas by 65 percent.
  He froze the Ryan White AIDS program at the 2001 level at a time when 
the drug cocktail and therapies has the number of people seeking AIDS 
treatment more than doubling since 1996.
  He cut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $109 
million, or 2.6 percent below the 2001 freeze level. Areas specifically 
cut are chronic disease and health promotion activities, such as 
diabetes, cancer and arthritis.
  He cut health professional training programs by $123 million, or 60.3 
percent.
  He cut Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, which 
has placed over 100,000 new police officers in communities, by $172 
million.
  He cut the small business budget by 43 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go on to just talk about a few other things that 
he cut. He closed the AIDS office. He closed the Race Relations office. 
He closed the Women's Bureau office. He provided for more arsenic in 
water. He went on to talk about maybe salmonella in hamburger in school 
systems is okay, and came back around and changed his mind. He changed 
the Kyoto Treaty, where all countries across America had agreed to 
CO2 levels. Then add to all of that naming some of the, in 
my opinion, most unqualified people to head some of the departments 
within the United States Government, those who are not sensitive to the 
issues affecting all Americans.
  So what I say is do not let the Bush smirk screen fool us. He eagerly 
reverses programs that will keep our communities and families safe and 
does it with a smile and a quip. We will have increasingly dangerous 
streets without the safety programs the President has cut, more people 
looking for housing assistance, a decreased ability to count on our 
drinking water, and other environmental programs. He likes to disarm 
his opponents with charm and allow his hatchet men to do the dirty 
work, but we know who is sending those hatchet men and whose work they 
are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled by the Bush smirk screen.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio.
  If I can comment briefly, and then I would introduce another 
colleague. I want my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, 
to understand that the reason that we are doing this today and pointing 
to the first 100 days is not because we dislike the President 
personally or because we are hoping that he fails. Just the opposite. I 
hope that he succeeds, and I wish him the best.
  Mr. Speaker, personally he seems like a very nice person. The problem 
is that the policies that he is implementing are not policies or an 
agenda that is helpful to the country, whether it is economic 
development of the country or it is environmental or health concerns. I 
think we have an obligation regardless of party affiliation to point 
out these problems because we do not want it to continue.
  My hope is that public pressure is brought against the administration 
on environmental issues and health care issues so that the President 
changes course and actually has an agenda and implements policies, 
together with Congress, that are positive and that help the average 
American.
  I just think that it is necessary for us to speak out and point out 
where the shortfalls are because otherwise it is going to continue. I 
certainly do not want what I have seen for the first 100 days to 
continue for the next 3\1/2\ years of this administration.

[[Page H1598]]

  I yield to my colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would note that we are having a Special 
Order at 3:15 in the afternoon, and that seems to be typical in this 
Congress. The Republican agenda is tax cuts, and then tax cuts and then 
tax cuts, all of them directed and weighted to the wealthiest people of 
the country. But other than that, there is not much of an agenda.
  We have learned a couple of things in the first 100 days of the 
George W. Bush administration. The first thing is that the word 
``compassionate'' was a political slogan for use during the campaign. 
You cannot find any compassion in the President's budget. Once he gets 
to the point of putting down numbers, there is nothing compassionate 
about his particular brand of conservatism.
  Second, he came to Portland, Maine, in my district to pitch his tax 
cut. As he has done all across this country, he said that in effect the 
tax cut comes from leftover money. He says after we have funded our 
priorities, there is a huge surplus in this country and it should go 
back to the people because it is the people's money. In other words he 
basically was saying this money is not needed to run the programs that 
benefit people in their districts, in their States right now. That is 
not true. It is absolutely not true, and once you have the budget you 
can see that it is not true.
  The tax cuts do not come from leftover money. What he gives back to 
the American people in tax cuts, he takes from them in budget cuts. Let 
us talk about a few of these that he is clearly going to try to get 
through.
  For example, let us take law enforcement. By and large Democrats and 
Republicans have agreed that we need to fight crime in this country. We 
need to help local communities fund law enforcement. That is why we 
have had this program for a 100,000 police officers. That is why we 
have tried to encourage community policing across the country. The 
President's budget cuts the COPS program by 17 percent. All of these 
cuts, some of which I am going to run through, there is not time to run 
through them all, what they do is they will grow dramatically over time 
because the tax cut grows dramatically in each successive year. That is 
why the budget cuts have to be so severe.
  The Bush budget cuts funding for land management programs by $2.6 
billion including the Department of Interior, the EPA, the Army Corps 
of Engineers; and these funds have helped parks and wildlife refuges in 
Maine.
  The Bush campaign said that he would leave no child behind. The Bush 
budget leaves many of America's children behind. How does that happen? 
On the one hand he says we are going to add $1 billion more for special 
education. On the other hand he pulls back $1.2 billion for school 
construction and renovation. In my State of Maine it means we get $4.5 
million more in special education funds, whereas full funding would be 
$60 million for the State of Maine. And he takes back $5.5 million. We 
lose $1 million, and yet the President is saying education is one of 
his top priorities.
  This makes no sense. It makes no sense at all. This is the one chance 
we have had in decades, in fact since the special education law was 
passed, this is our one chance to pass special education. And if the 
President's tax cut passes, that chance will be gone for a decade.
  It is absolutely clear that the priority is tax cut first, tax cut 
second, tax cut third; and education, prescription drugs for seniors, 
Social Security and Medicare, the environment, they are so far down on 
the agenda that you cannot even see them.

  The President says we have an energy crisis. He favors more drilling 
in ANWR, but his budget cuts funds for renewable energy resources 
programs and energy conservation programs. What sense does that make?
  Mr. Speaker, I think that certainly in my State it is clear that his 
budget cuts are aimed directly at the heart of Maine municipalities. 
The cuts in special education or the reduced fund for education 
overall, the reduced funding for law enforcement, inadequate funding to 
separate storm and sewer drains, all in all this tax cut is way too 
large, way too weighted for the wealthiest people in this country; and 
that is what he is asking the country to judge him by.
  A tax cut of the size that the President has proposed will not allow 
funding for special education. Half the size would allow us to make 
dramatic progress in a variety of different areas. It would, for 
example, help with some of those mandates that we really struggle with 
all of the time. It would allow full funding of a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit. I want to say something about that, an issue I have 
worked on for some period of time.
  When you look at what the Republicans are trying to do, both in the 
House and in the other body, and when you look at what the President is 
proposing, there is no way it works for rural States. I do not care 
whether you are a Republican, Independent, Democrat, in rural America 
the privatization of Medicare which is what the Breaux-Frist reform 
plan is all about, will not work. We learned last August from the 
Congressional Budget Office that traditional fee-for-service Medicare 
is cheaper than the services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by 
managed care companies, by HMOs. Yet the President continues his train 
down a track that provides that we are going to make sure that at least 
half, maybe more, of Medicare beneficiaries are served not by Medicare 
but by Aetna or United or the private insurance companies that have 
gone in and provided some HMO coverage to Medicare beneficiaries in 
other parts of the country, not in Maine.
  Mr. Speaker, I know this: Medicare does not pick up and leave a State 
when it is not making money. Private insurance companies do. HMOs do. 
They pick up and they leave States. Not only that, in any given year if 
they are not making enough money, this will increase the premium. If 
they are not making enough money, they will decrease the benefit. What 
kind of system is the President laying before this Congress? We can 
already see in this first 100 days what the President's agenda is. It 
is easy to find. If you want to know his policies on energy or the 
environment, just look at those policies advocated by the oil industry, 
by the coal industry, by the gas industry. That is where you will find 
perfect agreement.
  If you want to know his policies on health care, look at the 
pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance industry. They are the 
same policies as the President has.
  If you want to know his policy on privatizing Social Security, it is 
the same policy that Wall Street brokerages have been advocating for 
years because it will make them lots of money. This administration is 
captured by the special interests of the country. The President talks 
about running the government like a business. Well, at the rate we are 
going, the government will be nothing more than a business. It will pay 
no attention to those values that we deal with every day here because 
in this Congress, in the people's House, our job is not just about 
commercial values, it is about making sure that people have a chance to 
get ahead. That is what this country is all about. In a wide variety of 
areas, whether education, health care, the environment, we can only do, 
we can only improve our collective well-being through the Federal 
Government, the State governments, and the local governments. Abraham 
Lincoln said in 1854, ``Governments exist to do those things which a 
community of individuals cannot do, or cannot do so well by 
themselves.'' That message has been lost on this administration. Lost 
on this administration.

  Mr. Speaker, we need to move in this country from thinking not just 
about me, not just about our individual welfare, but to thinking about 
the common good, an old-fashioned phrase, but one that still has 
meaning and one that the people of America still understand. They know. 
The people in my State know. Here is a headline from yesterday's paper: 
``Local Advocates Rally Against Bush Budget Cut.'' People in Maine know 
we have an interest in making sure that the young people growing up in 
public housing projects have a chance for a better life.
  The President has zeroed out a $60 million grant to the Boys and 
Girls Clubs of this country. A small portion of that money goes into 
Portland, Maine. Let me tell you what it does. It funds four study 
centers, after-school study centers for kids. They come out

[[Page H1599]]

of school, they have a place to go. They have tutors, and materials to 
work on. They can improve their education and do better in school.
  Four different areas in Portland. It helps pay for a satellite Boys 
and Girls Club, a peer leadership program through which young people 
are able to develop leadership skills. It helps fund the Institute for 
Practical Democracy, a place for girls; and a variety of other 
programs. One woman who works with these children said if we eliminate 
this, we eliminate opportunities for our kids. The truth about the Bush 
tax cut is that it is taking money out of the hides of our kids. It is 
taking money out of the hides of our seniors. It is taking money out of 
the hides of the municipalities and communities all across this 
country, and it is taking money away from our ability to protect and 
preserve our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no free lunch in this country. Revenues are 
related to expenditures, even though the administration would argue the 
tax cut as if it were totally separate from the programs that American 
people and American communities have come to depend on. We need to do a 
better job, and we can.
  A tax cut half this size protects and preserves the kinds of programs 
which make a difference in the lives of Americans all across the 
country. This budget and tax cut are bad for my State of Maine. They 
are bad for the country. They are bad for working men and women all 
across the country, and it is our hope that they will be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, we may not change the administration; but it is our hope 
that in this Congress and in the other body we will be able to change 
the direction to one that is more balanced, more sensible and fairer 
for ordinary Americans.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen). If I could just comment a little on what the gentleman 
from Maine said because there were certain points that I just feel were 
so well articulated.
  I am so pleased that the gentleman kept stressing that there is no 
free lunch. He started out that way and he concluded that way. Because 
I do believe that, if we listen to the President in the first 100 days, 
he is constantly giving the impression that there is this huge surplus 
and there is all this money that we can spend for everything. The 
gentleman from Maine and I know that is not the case. Most people know 
that is not the case.
  When the President's budget came out, it was vividly shown that, in 
order to achieve this huge tax cut that was mostly going to the wealthy 
and to corporate interest, that we had to make significant cuts and 
even raid other programs, like Social Security and Medicare. So there 
is no free lunch.
  The other thing that I maintain is that, when we look at the 
President's tax initiative, although it is geared toward the wealthy 
and the corporate interests, it really does not help anyone ultimately, 
because I am very concerned that if we actually put it in effect that 
we would end up in a deficit situation again.
  When I talk to wealthy Americans, of course, a lot of them do not 
support his tax cut. Many of the wealthiest people in the country have 
come out against it. I think the reason is that because they understand 
that, if we go back into a deficit situation, it is going to hurt the 
economy. We are going to end up with high interest rates. We are going 
to have a situation where companies that want to start new production, 
new techniques will not be able to borrow any money. That is what we 
had for the period of time going back before the previous 
administration. We do not want to go back to that. Nobody benefits from 
that.
  The last thing that I wanted to comment that I thought the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) pointed out so well, a lot of times we talk 
about programs, and we use that term ``program,'' and I worry that I do 
not even want to use the term ``program'' because it almost has like a 
bad connotation, Federal program. But the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) talks about the COPS program, which I thought was so much on 
point.
  I mean, I had the same phenomenon that he pointed out where he had 
the newspaper and there were local citizens' rallies. In Asbury Park, 
which is one of my communities, one of the poorest communities that I 
represent, the police and some of the local officials just 
spontaneously, I did not know anything about it, had an event or press 
conference. They were talking to the press about the COPS program and 
how important it was to their city and how they had been able to hire 
extra police and the money was coming from the Federal Government to 
pay for it and this was helping with their fight against crime. They 
could not imagine what was going to happen if this program effectively 
ended.
  Although there is some money in the budget for it, it has been cut so 
much that there will be no new police hired.
  So I just would like to point out that we are talking about real 
things here. This has a real impact. We are not up here talking about 
the 100 days in some abstract way because we dislike the President or 
he is of the other party. We are just very concerned about what is 
happening to the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) for putting this special order together and bringing us 
together to talk on this first 100 days of President Bush's presidency.
  Actually, I am going to talk about energy. But it is clear to me, 
when we look at the energy policies that have been brought forward or 
not been brought forward since President Bush's election that in his 
first 100 days in office, President Bush has made it very clear that 
the only promise that he intends to keep is his commitment to leave no 
special interests behind. Nowhere is that more clear than in his 
actions and in his inactions surrounding energy and the environment.
  In spite of all of his campaign promises and catchy speeches since 
taking office in January, President Bush has made it clear that our 
environment is not one of his priorities.
  On the campaign trail, however, Bush vowed to strengthen carbon 
dioxide regulations to keep factories from polluting our air further. 
Within 2 months of taking the oath of office, he went back on his word, 
refusing to toughen carbon dioxide standards, making it easier and more 
effective for big industry to pollute.
  Shortly after breaking his word on CO2s, President Bush 
repealed tough new regulations that would have reduced the arsenic in 
our drinking water. Instead of acting to protect the water that our 
children drink, the President acted to protect mining companies from 
having to clean up their act and keep our water clean.
  In these first 100 days, the President also unilaterally withdrew 
U.S. support from the Kyoto Treaty, seriously undermining our role as a 
world leader in environmental protection.
  Most alarming to me as a Californian and as the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science is the President's 
lack of commitment to environmentally smart solutions for our energy 
crisis.
  All Americans want and deserve reliable, affordable energy. 
Increasing our reliance on fossil fuels is not the way to solve our 
energy crisis or protect us from future problems. A serious Federal 
commitment to renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and 
conservation is the only real solution.
  But let us face it. The President and his Vice President are oilmen. 
Enron and other power companies were among Bush's campaign's biggest 
donors. The bottom line is that Bush-Cheney and their campaign 
contributors have a lot to gain from maintaining the stranglehold 
fossil fuels have on our power supply.
  Despite the fact that the President stood before this country and 
said in his State of the Union Address that he was committed to 
renewable energy research, he has done nothing in his first 100 days 
except move to further increase our reliance on fossil fuels.
  In fact, in his budget, President Bush slashed the funding for 
renewable energy research by $200 million. Under the President's plan, 
50 percent of the geothermal technology development funding would be 
cut, 54 percent of the solar energy budget would be cut, and 61 million 
dollars would be cut from energy efficiency research funding.
  Once more, the President's budget ties future funding for renewables 
to

[[Page H1600]]

Federal dollars raised from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. That is an outrage. Destroying one of the most pristine 
expansions of wilderness in our country for a limited supply of oil is 
not a solution to the California or our Nation's energy crisis. It is 
one more environmental problem. It is a problem that he would leave for 
the future generations to solve.
  So while Californians suffer through more blackouts and the Nation 
struggles to pay skyrocketing energy bills, President Bush has his 
billionaire oilman Vice President meeting in secret to craft a national 
energy policy. If it is anything like the Bush budget, and one can be 
sure it will be, it will be heavy on oil and nuclear energy and light 
on safe, sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) knows as 
well as I do that 100 days may be a good benchmark for politicians and 
pundits to assess new presidencies. But it is only a fraction of the 
time that our President actually spends in office. If President Bush 
continues this pattern for the rest of his term, big business may be 
smiling, but the American people will not be.
  Over the next 3\1/2\ years, President Bush may make good on his 
commitment to leave no special interests behind. But after 4 years of 
his antienvironment pro oil company stance, the American people will be 
ready to leave President Bush behind.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), and I know how important the energy issue is 
obviously in California and around the country.
  The gentlewoman mentioned the issue of renewables. I know that, in 
the budget, the research on renewables was cut about half. I think she 
mentioned that. It is so unfortunate because a lot of new technology is 
out there that is already being tried. The United States is the leader 
in these new technologies. If we think about it, here we are, the 
country that could take the leadership role, whether it is global 
climate change or whatever, and export a lot of these technologies, 
actually make money and create jobs; and this administration does not 
want to attend to it. It is just so unfortunate because it is so 
backward looking.
  There are just ways of doing things that could create more jobs, 
solve the energy crisis over the long-term and at the same time make 
for a better quality environment, and he just does not listen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) very much for yielding to me.
  Let me first of all just congratulate the gentleman on his leadership 
in the environmental area. I know that the State of New Jersey cares a 
lot about the environment, too. He has been a real leader when it comes 
to renewables and coastal resources and protecting them. So I just want 
to congratulate the gentleman for all his hard work in that area and 
thank him for participating today.

  I wanted to talk about the 100-day period and talk a little bit about 
budget priorities. It seems to me that, as President, one puts in one's 
budget the thing that one cares about, and one cuts the things that one 
does not care about. Looking at a budget is a real test of where the 
country is going to head under this President.
  So I think the budget speaks louder than words more than anything. I 
think one can have a lot of talk and one can have action, but the 
budget reflects where one wants to take the country. That is where I 
think this budget that has just come out, and by the way, I think it is 
very interesting that we had all of these votes on tax cuts and overall 
budget resolutions without ever seeing a budget. I mean, that is the 
most devastating thing is to not even be able to see a budget before 
one votes on the revenue side of the picture.
  So let us take a look at what this budget reflects on environmental 
issues. First of all, we have cuts across the board in various agencies 
that deal with the environment. Let us take the Environmental 
Protection Agency. This is an agency that enforces the law, that works 
very hard to make sure that air quality and water quality and toxic 
waste standards are all met. Those things are very, very important to 
Americans. Cut EPA 8 percent in the President's budget.
  Now, my understanding from talking to some of our members on the 
Committee on the Budget is these cuts this year even get more severe in 
succeeding years. So we are talking about serious deep cuts to a very 
important agency like the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Now, in my home State, we have a couple of national laboratories and 
they are real jewels and they do a lot of great research. But in the 
past, many, many years ago, they had nuclear waste which they disposed 
of in improper ways. So there has been a 10-year program to try to get 
that cleaned up.
  Well, basically in this budget what the President is telling places 
like Los Alamos is we are going to slow that cleanup down because they 
cut the nuclear waste cleanup budget for the Department of Energy.
  One of the other big items in this budget that I think is a very, 
very important issue is research on alternative and renewable forms of 
energy. If one looks in that Department of Energy budget for solar, 
wind, other alternative and renewable sources of energy, big cuts in 
those budgets. To me, that just does not make any sense.
  Now, let us jump to the campaign trail for a minute, because 
President Bush talked a lot on the campaign trail about how he was for 
full funding of the land and water conservation fund. This is a fund 
that helps the Federal Government, States, localities, cities try to do 
everything they can to protect parks and to expand parks and to 
refurbish recreation areas. That is what the land and water 
conservation funds.
  President Bush said in his campaign full funding of land and water 
conservation fund. The Congress passed by a very, very big margin a 
bill that, over the next 10 years, put significant monies; and there 
was another big huge cut to the tune of $260 million in land and water 
conservation fund monies going into parks, going in to help people with 
recreation areas.

                              {time}  1545

  This is a shared relationship. This is something that the Federal 
Government does with a city and a county. They put up half the money, 
we put up half the money, we go into it together to create a park and a 
community.
  One other department I want to mention because it is very important 
in the West is the Department of Interior. The President's budget once 
again has big cuts in the Department of Interior. What we have here, 
and I think it is a very sad situation, we have a lot of talk about how 
we are going to take care of the environment. We are going to move 
towards clean air and clean water. Yet when we look at this budget 
blueprint, we end up finding out that this President wants to cut in 
all of these crucial areas, from the Environmental Protection Agency to 
nuclear waste cleanup in DOE, to research on alternative and renewable 
forms of energy, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the 
Department of Interior. I find it deplorable that this administration 
would cut so deeply into those vital environmental programs.
  I again applaud the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his 
efforts on this issue.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico. I just 
want to mention to my other colleagues, I think we only have another 
minute or two but they can do 5 minutes after this. I appreciate them 
coming down and joining us.
  I just wanted to comment briefly on what the gentleman from New 
Mexico said because he talked about open space, which again is so 
important in the State of New Jersey. Essentially he is right. What the 
President has proposed for the budget, you could not possibly even fund 
existing open space and land and water conservation programs, let alone 
anything new. We have a lot of needs. We had a bus trip last week. We 
went around the State. I was with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) at the Great Falls in Paterson which he is trying to get 
designated as a national park. There is no way that you can do that or 
provide the funding for the Great Falls or any

[[Page H1601]]

other new area for open space or historical preservation with this 
budget. We need to point this out.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the 100 days is over on Monday. Obviously 
there is going to be a lot more talk about it over the next few days 
before we get to Monday. The bottom line is that if you look at the 
first 100 days of this administration, it has been a failure on so many 
fronts. It is also not in tune with what the President said during his 
campaign. We are not pointing this out because we want him to be a 
failure. We are pointing it out because we want the agenda to change 
and be more proactive and helpful to the average American. We feel that 
there is a broad bipartisan consensus on a number of these 
environmental and health care and education initiatives.
  There is no reason why we cannot move forward in a positive way. The 
President in his first 100 days has basically, I think, failed to carry 
forth with the agenda that he promised in the campaign, which would be 
good for the average American. Whether it is CO2 emissions 
or open space or education, there is a lot of rhetoric but there is not 
much action and certainly no indication of funding in the budget to 
carry out what he promised. We will continue to point this out because 
we want it to change and we think that this country can move in a 
forward fashion on a bipartisan basis.

                          ____________________