[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 FIRST 100 DAYS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for holding forth for an hour on what I 
think is a very important discussion. I think it is also important as 
we debate this issue that we clarify the reason why we rise to the 
floor, Mr. Speaker, for some might think that it is clearly to make a 
very bland or a very superficial analysis of 100 days of an 
administration.
  Might I say as a Member of the United States Congress, I am willing 
to look at our 100 days as well because frankly what I am concerned 
about is the future of this Nation, the good future of the Nation, the 
improved quality of life. As I look to the 100 days, what I say to the 
American people is we can analyze 100 days because we have certain 
documents and certain actions that we can determine whether or not 
there is a vision for the future of this Nation or whether in fact we 
are going backward.
  What I would say to the administration is of course there are 
analyses that suggest that it has been an okay 100 days, it has been a 
good 100 days, there is nothing that has been disturbed in the 100 
days. That may be the case, but the question is who have we helped, 
what vision have we set forward in order to improve the quality of life 
of so many Americans? What have we done to be bold in our leadership?
  This is why, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House and cite 
several aspects of concern that I have. I have not seen the bold 
leadership that is necessary. When we left the last Congress, the 106th 
Congress, we knew that we had a problem with uninsured children in 
America. We know that in the last Congress and in the Congress before, 
we put aside $24 billion to ensure that children around the Nation 
could be insured. Yet that has not been fulfilled. And so it would be 
important that a bold vision for America be a commitment to insure 
every uninsured child. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that surpasses any 
need to give a $1.6 trillion tax cut on a surplus that is unsteady.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we had bipartisan support on smaller class 
sizes for our Nation's schools. Not only smaller class sizes but to 
rebuild our crumbling schools. Not in someone's district but in 
America, whether it is rural, suburban or whether or not it is an urban 
area. There is not one of us who can go to our districts that cannot 
find a 50-year-old school, a 60-year-old school. Certainly there is 
great history and many of the old graduates are glad that their 
building is still standing, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a circumstance 
where windows have to be opened, where bathrooms are not working, where 
stairwells are crumbling and our children are going to these schools. 
Bold leadership, Mr. Speaker, would have meant that in the 100 days of 
the administration that we are assessing and in this Congress we would 
have already brought to the floor of the House legislation to rebuild 
America's schools, collaborating with our local jurisdictions, talking 
about smaller class sizes.
  As a member of the Committee on Science, let me say that I have spent 
some 6 years dealing with technology, research and development. My 
colleague from New Mexico spoke about Los Alamos. I went to Los Alamos 
and visited and saw the needs there. They have hardworking 
professionals but I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, we need resources in 
the Nation's labs. We need to rebuild them. We need to ensure that they 
are safe. And can you believe that we in the Committee on Science have 
oversight over a proposed budget by the administration that cuts this 
kind of research and development. In fact, what we are finding out is 
that there is more money for defense research and less money for 
civilian research. That means that NASA, the Department of Energy, 
NOAA, all of these entities that deal with the quality of life of 
Americans, improving the quality of life of Americans, helping to clean 
up nuclear waste, are now being proposed to be cut. That is not bold 
leadership. It falls on the backs of this Congress and it falls on the 
back of the administration.
  Let me just quickly say, Mr. Speaker, why I am concerned. Both 
bodies, if you will, both segments have not functioned with the 
majority in the Senate and in the House that are Republican and this 
administration. One of the first things we did that now is being 
muffled over, if you will, in the 100 days is after 10 long years of 
work, we thought it was important to repeal the ergonomics work safety 
rule which was helping Americans with skeletal injuries because 
Workmen's Compensation did not pay. The administration thought that 
that was a big victory to repeal that long, hard work, starting under 
Secretary Dole of the Department of Labor and now we are repealing 
that.
  Let me close by saying to you arsenic in the water, lowering 
emissions, lack of dollars for affordable housing and homelessness. Mr. 
Speaker, I would hope that we will strike a vision for the American 
people, come together with some leadership, and respond to what 
everyday, average Americans need in the 21st century.

                          ____________________