Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week, Vice President Cheney was in Dayton, Ohio, to try to argue for the President's economic budget plan, to try to justify the economic devastation that his administration's policies have wreaked on the American people. In Ohio alone, one out of six manufacturing jobs has simply disappeared since President Bush took office; 300,000 jobs have been lost in my home State of Ohio. That is 2,000 jobs a week have vanished; that is 260 jobs every single day in Ohio, jobs that have been lost every single day of the Bush administration.

Now, I wish that Vice President Cheney had been with me earlier this month. I was speaking to the Akron machine shop owners and operators; and before I spoke to this group, about 60 men and women who own small tool and die, fabricating machine shops, companies of 5 to 200 employees, a gentleman walked forward and handed me this stack of leaflets, pamphlets, and flyers. I did not initially know what they were. He explained, these are auctions, going-out-of-business, fire- sale equipment sales at plants all over the United States. For instance, auction, family facility closed, Medina, Ohio. Absolute auction, Cuyehoga Falls, no minimums, no reserves, high dollar buys regardless of price. Another going out, complete shop closeout auction, Marion, Ohio. High-tech manufacturing plant closing, Chicago, Illinois. Large capacity fabricating machine shop closing, Hingham, Massachusetts. Two complete stamping machine tool shops going out of business, 2-day auction, Northbrook, Illinois. Precision CNC Job Shop, Scottsboro, Alabama.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker, I do not think President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I just do not think they see this. I think that the people who run our government seem so out of touch with what is happening to manufacturing in this country, what is happening to employment in this country, what is happening to our economy. Every time they hear bad economic news, they have two answers. One is tax cuts for the most privileged in society with the hope that some of it will trickle down to the rest of society, and the other answer is trade agreements, more North American free trade agreements, NAFTA-like trade agreements that continue to ship jobs overseas, that continue to hemorrhage manufacturing jobs in this country.

From the President and Vice President, that is always the response. It is tax cuts, trickle down economics, tax cuts for the most privileged, and trade agreements that ship jobs overseas. But now there seems to be a third answer that some Republican legislative leaders have brought forth.

I would cite from CNN. Paula Zahn asked the question of one Republican leader, saying, Why have 2.5 million jobs been lost during the Bush administration; and this Republican leader said, Well, Paula, in this 21st-century economy, jobs that are not reflected in the establishment payroll survey take on different forms. Then he went on to say, this is a leader in the Republican Party in the House, There are 430,000 Americans who make their full-time living selling on eBay.

That is not in any way reflected in the numbers.

So the Bush administration's answer has been tax cuts for the most privileged and trickle down economics, trade agreements, and now I guess they are saying that jobs on eBay are making a difference. I do not think those jobs are paying health care benefits. I do not think those jobs are the kind of jobs that we want to build our economy on.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the leaders in this government are so out of touch with economic reality in this country, instead of tax cuts for the most privileged and trickle down economics, instead of trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, instead of relying on eBay as an engine of economic growth, this Congress needs to pass the bipartisan Crane-Rangel bill. It rewards those companies with tax incentives who manufacture in the United States and, at the same time that, in essence, penalizes those companies

that ship jobs overseas, those companies that move offshore to the Bahamas, continue to get government contracts, and avoid taxes in the United States; those companies like Halliburton, which get billions of dollars in unbid contracts, yet end up oftentimes with their subsidiary avoiding taxes, while continuing to pay the Vice President of the United States $3,000 a week. That is not good economic policy. Our incentives should be given to those companies that manufacture in the United States, that provide jobs for American workers, not the kind of plans that the President of the United States has thrust on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this job loss, this erosion of our manufacturing base must be turned around, not with old tired solutions, but with aggressive incentives to keep manufacturing in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives again today refused to extend unemployment compensation benefits. Almost 1 million Americans since December have lost have seen their unemployment benefits expire. That is 1 million people. That is 1 million families, people who are looking for work, people who cannot find work in this economy.

In my state of Ohio, 300,000 people have lost their jobs. That is 2,000 people every week. Two hundred and sixty people have lost their jobs every single day of the Bush administration.

Their answer is more tax cuts for the wealthy, hoping it trickles down, and more trade agreements that hemorrhage jobs overseas.

We should extend unemployment compensation benefits to those 1 million workers. We should pass Crane-Rangel, a bipartisan initiative to give incentives to American manufacturers to hire Americans and to manufacture in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I came here tonight to talk about jobs and mismanagement of our budget and economy by the President, but we are going to have a moment's discussion on the previous speaker outlining the Medicare bill.

The fact is the prescription drug, Medicare privatization bill is not working for seniors, and it begs the question, why is the administration spending 80 million of our tax dollars to advertise this bill to try to get seniors convinced that this law works, and it does not even go into effect until 2006? The President has made a decision to spend 80 million tax dollars, instead of putting it into a drug benefit, spend 80 million tax dollars to convince people that this new drug law, this new Medicare privatization law is good for the public, when, in fact, the Medicare privatization bill increases the profits for drug companies in this country by almost $180 billion; and this drug bill, this privatization bill gives a direct subsidy of tax dollars to insurance companies to Medicare HMOs of $46 billion.

The reason the bill is not popular, the reason the law is not going to work is it was written by the drug and insurance industries. Why did the drug and insurance industries write the bill? Why did the President allow the drug companies and the insurance companies into the Oval Office to write this privatization bill? Frankly, because of major political contributions from the drug companies and the insurance companies to President Bush and to Republican leadership.

The word on the street in this town is that the drug companies are going to give $100 million to President Bush's reelection. If that does not tell you something about this drug bill, this Medicare privatization bill, it speaks volumes.

Jobs and Mismanagement of the Budget and Economy by the President

Mr. Speaker, to shift gears for a moment, Vice President Cheney came to my State, to Dayton, Ohio, to defend the President's economic record. In Ohio, one out of six manufacturing jobs has been lost since President Bush took office; 300,000 people in Ohio have lost their jobs. That is 2,000 people every week. That is 260 Ohioans have lost their jobs every day since President Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001.

The response to this bad news from the President and the Vice President, who seem so out of touch, do not seem to understand people's anxieties, people's fears, people's difficulties when they lose their jobs, their answer is always more tax cuts for the most privileged people in society, the 1 percent richest people, hoping the tax cuts will trickle down and help the rest of the country and more trade agreements that send jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that instead of Vice President Cheney going to a fundraiser in Dayton, like he did, and then trying to defend the Bush economic plan, pretty indefensible, difficult thing to do, I wish the Vice President would have been with me in Akron, about 3 weeks ago in my district, meeting with a group of mostly Republican business owners, machine shop owners in Akron in Summit County, Ohio.

Right before I spoke to these 60 owner/operators of small machine shops, tool and dye makers and others, a gentleman walked up and put this stack of fliers on my table, a little bit more than this actually. He said this is 1 month of fliers that he has received from companies around the country that are going out of business. These are fire sale fliers from small businesses, manufacturers that are going out of business because of the Bush economic plan and because of the Bush budget.

Let me just show you some of these. A company in Cleveland, Ohio, auction, going out of business; company in Norristown, Pennsylvania, public auction; public auction company in Nashua, New Hampshire; machine tool auction, Tipp City, north of Dayton, Ohio; facility closed, all must go, Medina, Ohio; absolute auction, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, everything must go; plant closed, everything sells, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Marion, Ohio, complete shop close-out action; high-tech manufacturing plant closeout, Elk Grove, Illinois, near Chicago; large- capacity fabricating machine shop closing, Bingham, Massachusetts; precision shop, CNC job shop downsizing, Houston, Texas, President's own State; complete stamping and machine tool shops, two of them going out of business, Mansfield, Ohio, the community I grew up in; public auction, Charlotte, North Carolina, everything must sell, plant closes; South El Monte, California, facility closing; public auction, Newark, New York. One thing after another.

The President does not get it. We should extend unemployment benefits. We should pass the bipartisan Crane-Rangel bill, which will give incentives, not the way the President does to all large companies including those that are moving out of the country, but those that provide jobs in the United States of America. This simply cannot keep happening in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the Medicare bill. This was a bill that the President told us cost $400 billion. Yet people in the department who were not allowed to tell Congress had told the White House it would cost $550 billion. That is the first part of the credibility gap.

The second part of the credibility gap is that the President said this was a bill to help America's seniors, when in fact this bill will mean $139 billion more in drug company profits, $46 billion in direct subsidies from taxpayers, from all of us, directly to the insurance industry.

This bill was written in the Oval Office, this Medicare law, by the drug industry and by the insurance industry while the President and the Vice President stood by and tried to pretend that it was for American seniors. That is the credibility gap this President and this Vice President have.

We should have passed a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, not for the drug companies, not for the insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment about Vice President Cheney's trip to Dayton, Ohio. But before that, I just want to mention that the Medicare drug law that my friend from Ohio mentions just happened to be legislation written by the drug and the insurance industries. The drug industry will get $140 billion additional profits under this law. The insurance industry gets a $46 billion direct gift subsidy from taxpayers.

This bill was written for the drug industry, written for the insurance industry. In fact, the word in Washington is that President Bush will receive about $100 million in contributions from the drug industry. I think that is probably all you need to know. And that is why seniors simply do not like this drug bill, do not like the new Medicare law; and that is why the Republican Party, the President, is spending upwards of $80 million in taxpayer dollars to advertise to try to convince America's seniors that this is good legislation, that it is good law. It is clearly not.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Vice President came to Dayton, Ohio, last week to try to explain away what has happened to the Ohio economy. One out of six manufacturing jobs has disappeared since President Bush took office; 300,000 in Ohio have been lost. That is 2,000 jobs every single week of the Bush administration. That is 260 jobs have disappeared every single day in Ohio since George Bush took office.

In response to the bad economic news which cascades across my State, bad news almost every week on the economy, 600 people just laid off from a phone center in Trumbull County, near the district of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

In response to the bad news, the President has got two solutions every time: more tax breaks for the most privileged in our society, with the hope that some of these benefits trickle down to the rest of the people in this country. That has not worked. And the second response, the second solution is more NAFTA-like trade agreements that continue to ship jobs overseas, that continue to hemorrhage jobs. We have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country, manufacturing jobs, because of these trade agreements. They simply are not working.

The question always is, How out of touch can our government's leaders be? The answer to that is I do not know. Something seems to be new every day. The economic report of the President, which came out a couple or 3 or 4 weeks ago, signed by George Bush, signed by the President, the economic report of the President talks about outsourcing jobs, one of the biggest problems in our economy; and the President's Chief Economic Adviser, Gregory Mankiw, said outsourcing jobs is a good thing because it makes the economy more efficient.

Well, let him look in the eye of a computer operator, let him look in the

eye of a clerk who has lost her job, let him look in the eye of a steel worker who has lost his job and tell him that outsourcing is a good thing because it makes us more efficient.

Then in the same report, Mr. Mankiw, the President's top economic guru, the top economic adviser, said that we will this year create 200,000 jobs a month. Well, after he said that, even the President's people, including the President, said we did not really mean 200,000 a month, because the first month they fell 199,000 jobs short, and every month they have fallen way, way short of this job creation they promised.

Then the President's economic adviser said, you know, maybe in response to this, and this really shows how out of touch they can get, maybe in response to this we need to reclassify what manufacturing is. Perhaps, because a bottling company is a manufacturing job, you take the syrup in a Pepsi or Coke bottling plant with 200 or 300 employees, and you take the carbonated water and put them together, that is a manufacturing process.

Maybe, they suggest, the President's top economic people, that we should reclassify fast food, I am not making this up, this is in this report, the fast-food restaurants, maybe they should be considered manufacturing. Because you have the hamburger and you chemically treat it, you cook it; you take the cheese and you chemically treat it, you melt it; then you put the bread on, and you create these manufacturing jobs. Then you take the syrup and you push the button so the syrup and the carbonated water mix. This administration actually is thinking about reclassifying those service jobs as manufacturing jobs.

Now, I am not making fun of people working in fast-food restaurants. In fact, if the Bush administration is going to reclassify those as manufacturing jobs, let them pay more than $7 an hour; and let them give these young men and women, or older men and women in these fast- food restaurants, decent wages and decent benefits, if they are going to call them manufacturing jobs.

Then the last point I wanted to make is in terms of how out of touch this government can get. One of the leading Republicans in this institution, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, recently was complaining that Democrats and others are saying that we have lost manufacturing jobs.

He said, the fact is that you Democrats, you critics, you media people, you economists, you workers who are complaining about lost jobs are simply not looking at the economy right.

Here is what he said. He said there are 430,000 Americans who make their full-time living selling on ebay. This is not reflected in the economy.

So are we going to count garage sales as economic growth? Are they going to pay them health benefits? Is that where my friends want to take the U.S. economy?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) knows that the Medicare bill that he is bragging about, in fact, is simply a payoff to the drug companies and to the insurance industries, $46 billion direct taxpayer subsidies to the insurance industry, $200 billion in direct subsidies to the drug companies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who specializes every year in this budget, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting SCHIP, cutting programs which protect health in this country, the gentleman from Iowa knows better.

The fact is, our budget has $800 million in Medicare more than their budget. Their budget does a much better job of taking health care, Medicare dollars and shoveling them to insurance company HMOs. The President said it was only $14 billion insurance subsidies, taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies, under the Medicare bill until he signed the bill, then he acknowledged we are shoveling $46 billion in direct subsidies to insurance companies which also happen to be major political contributors to the President and to the Republican majority, not too different from drug company contributions to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the other major beneficiary of the Medicare bill.

The Medicaid bill is not just a question of Republicans not reducing government spending, they are shifting the burden to the States. California loses $226 million in Medicaid funding; Florida loses $90 million; Ohio, $87 million; Michigan, $60 million, and on and on and on.

Medicaid covers 70 percent of the nursing homes in this country. If we pass the Democratic substitute, we are putting America's seniors ahead of HMOs. If we pass the Republican substitute, we are leaving seniors and disabled Americans on their own.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush was in my home State of Ohio in Cleveland near my district a week or so ago trying to justify his economic policy. Ohio has lost 300,000 jobs since President Bush took office. That is 2,000 jobs a week, 260 jobs every day. One out of six manufacturing jobs has simply disappeared in Ohio.

His response is more tax cuts for the most wealthy in society, with trickle-down economics, hoping that it might create some jobs and trade agreements that ship more jobs overseas. It is not working.

Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives should pass the Crane- Rangel bill, which will give incentives to American manufacturing to grow their manufacturing jobs here. This Congress should pass that instead of what President Bush has tried: old trickle-down economics, which is not working.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time.

We all in this institution support our troops. We marvel at and applaud their bravery and their courage. It is not, Mr. Speaker, what is in this resolution. It is what is not in it. I suggest to my Republican colleagues that they meet with families of the men and women who are serving in Iraq, something many of us in this institution have done. They will learn how badly this administration has supplied our troops.

There is no mention of the lack of body armor in this resolution and how the Bush administration has failed to outfit our troops. There is no mention in this resolution about the lack of safe drinking water for our troops, something that this administration has failed to supply. There is no mention in this resolution of cuts in prescription drug benefits to veterans that this administration has forced on those who have lived up to their obligation for our country. There is no mention in this resolution of the $1.2 billion underfunded for the Veterans Administration in the President's budget. There is no mention in this resolution of 558 courageous young men and women who have died in Iraq. There is no mention of the 2,788 soldiers and sailors who were wounded since President Bush dressed in his flight suit and declared, ``mission accomplished.'' There is no mention in this resolution of weapons of mass destruction. There is no mention in this resolution of the Bush administration's deceit in leading us to this war.

Mr. Speaker, the best way to honor our troops is to supply the troops adequately, to protect the troops and make sure they are safe, and to fulfill the promises to our veterans. Something the Bush administration has failed to do. Something my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle have failed to address.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the $87 billion, first of all, I voted to equip the troops in Iraq in the first vote. When the Bush administration failed with enough money in that budget to provide safe drinking water, to provide body armor, when the administration failed to do it, they had plenty of money to do it; yet it took them months and months and months to make our troops safe. That is why so many in this body said do not give the Pentagon more money, do not give Halliburton more money, do not give more money to the company that is paying Vice President Cheney $3,000 a week while he is Vice President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, if the President's Medicare prescription drug bill is so good, why does the Bush administration have to sell it so hard?

The Bush administration has already used 13 million tax dollars to spend on selling this prescription drug bill, this prescription drug law, to the American people, spending tax dollars for a benefit that does not even take effect for 2 more years. They have already spent $13 million. They are planning to spend $80 million more to advertise to the American people, slick television ads to sell this law that simply is not going to work very well. That $80 million could fill 900,000 arthritis medicine prescriptions. That $80 million could by 1.5 million prescriptions of glaucoma medicine. That $80 million could buy 2.5 million prescriptions of blood pressure medicine. Instead, the Bush administration is going to spend that $80 million on an ad blitz of slick campaign-style ads in homage to late night infomercials.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that was with taxpayer dollars that was done. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think one of the fundamental questions here, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Pallone) leading this special order tonight and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) being here, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), all of whom have been very involved in this Medicare issue.

I think there are two questions. One is how can you justify taxpayer dollars being spent on an ad campaign in such a politically charged issue? Second, when the Medicare benefit does not even go into effect for 2 years so that you are running these ads at taxpayer expense during the Presidential election year, informing the voters and the beneficiaries of something that is 2 years away.

I think the second question to ask is, why are they having so much trouble convincing the public the Medicare bill is a great bill? The fact is the public is not biting. The public understands intuitively, the seniors overwhelmingly, and I think people of all ages overwhelmingly, understand that George Bush and the Republican leadership have sat down with the drug industry and sat down with the insurance industry, and they went into the Oval Office, and they came into this Chamber, the drug and insurance industry, and they wrote this legislation.

A $400 billion, they told us, bill, $139 billion of that goes to increased profits or the drug industry. Another $14 billion of our tax dollars goes to the insurance industry. It is just clear this is another example of President Bush's very close allegiance to the drug industry and the insurance industry.

The word on the street in Washington is the President is going to get $100 million from the drug industry for his campaign. The drug industry loves this President. They have gotten everything they want from this President, and you can bet if that $100 million from the prescription drug industry goes to President Bush, that is one of the reasons seniors in this country are paying such a high price. No wonder it is darn near impossible to convince seniors that they got a good deal with this drug bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is intriguing what the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is saying about the whole Medicare structure and how my friends on the other side of the aisle and President Bush, in large part at the behest of the insurance industry, which sees huge profits in this Medicare bill, say that they want to privatize it.

One of the most important facts about Medicare public versus a private insurance HMO Medicare is administrative costs. Traditional Medicare, the Medicare that we know, that 85 percent of America's seniors are enrolled in, has about 2 percent administrative costs, while private insurance has administrative costs averaging between 15 and 20 percent.

So no wonder if we have privatized Medicare, it will cost taxpayers more, yet Medicare beneficiary seniors will actually get less.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush came to Cleveland near my district last week to try to defend his economic policies. This is a President who will be the first President since Herbert Hoover who has seen a net loss of jobs during his term. Ohio has lost 3 million jobs since George Bush raised his right hand on January 20, 2001. He has lost 2,000 jobs a week, 260 jobs every single day that he has been President. His response always to bad economic news is more tax cuts for the most privileged, trickle-down economics, hoping something will trickle down to the middle class and more trade agreements like NAFTA that ship jobs overseas.

Tax cuts for the wealthy are not working. Overseas trade agreements like China and PNTR and CAFTA and NAFTA and all the things that he is trying to do, those are not working, either. We need an economic policy that puts working families first. That means job creation. That means those 300,000 Ohioans who have lost jobs can be put back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, if the Republican Medicare bill is so good, why do they have to sell it so hard? That is a question I have been asking myself lately. I bet it is a question the American people are starting to ask too.

When AARP boss Bill Novelli came out for the Bush Medicare privatization bill last year, he launched a $7 million ad campaign to convince seniors he had made the right decision. America's seniors knew better, and 45,000 AARP members quit in protest.

Rather than learn from AARP's mistake, the President is repeating that same mission, this time at taxpayers' expense. The Bush administration is spending almost $14 million on a nationwide taxpayer- financed TV advertising campaign, the goal of which is to ``educate'' seniors on why the new Medicare drug law is not as bad as it appears. Interestingly in this election year, he is running those ads at taxpayers' expense even though the Medicare bill does not take effect for 2 more years.

The Bush administration's Medicare ads were suspect from the start. With the slick look of a campaign spot, they assure seniors that the bill guarantees the same Medicare, the same benefits. It is not the same Medicare. They would not be spending the money and trying so hard to convince us if it were the same Medicare. It is not the same Medicare. All seniors will pay higher deductibles. Millions of seniors will pay higher premiums.

And in terms of more benefits, the new coverage is not even available until 2006. It is far from free, and it is actually less generous than the employer-sponsored retiree coverage many seniors have today. In fact, by jeopardizing these employer-sponsored benefits that some 12 million seniors have today, the new Medicare law is likely to leave millions of those seniors with less coverage than they have today.

``The same Medicare, more benefits.'' It is a catchy soundbite. The Government Accounting Office, the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, also said it is false advertising. In the people's name with their tax dollars. They said it was false advertising. Now newspapers tell us that the Bush administration is not just manipulating the news; they are inventing it. The administration is using the people's tax dollars literally to hire actors to portray reporters in staged ``interviews'' that look more like the Home Shopping Network than they do legitimate news, and they do a public discourse.

Even the conservative editors at The Plain Dealer, the largest paper in my State in Cleveland, called those ads phony. And that is just the beginning. News reports, real news stories written by real reporters say the $13 million ad campaign, the infomercial-like interviews are just the tip of the iceberg. The administration is reportedly planning to spend another 80 million of the people's tax dollars to push the Medicare bill which is now law. The drug companies, close allies of President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress, the word on the street is that the drug companies are going to contribute $100 million to President Bush's reelection. No surprise that the drug companies came into this institution and wrote that language and wrote that Medicare law, the parts that the insurance industry did not write in the Medicare law. Those drug companies are also partners in the marketing plan. Drug giant Pfizer recently launched a traveling road show to talk up the law's new coverage. A less credible champion for drug affordability would be hard to find, Mr. Speaker, less credible than Pfizer. After all, it is the same company, Pfizer, that cut off supplies to Canadian pharmacies when my constituents are trying to buy drugs in Canada because they are so much less expensive. The same drug, same packaging, same dosage, just much less expensive. By the way, Pfizer's pitchman is former U.S. Republican Senator Bob Dole, the same Bob Dole who voted against Medicare in 1965, its creation, who was still bragging about his ``no'' vote 30 years later.

There is even more to this story. Last year Medicare's chief actuary, a government employee, the man responsible for actually drawing an honest fiscal picture to tell the Congress and to tell the American people, said the Bush plan would cost well over $500 billion rather than the President's promise and Republican leadership's promise that it costs $400 billion. After the bill was enacted, the administration released a revised estimate, surprise, and said actually it will cost about $530 billion.

The Medicare actuary, a Federal employee, was forbidden by his boss, a Federal employee, a Bush political appointee, who is now, interestingly enough, a drug industry lobbyist, that Medicare actuary was prevented from releasing the plan's true cost under the threat that he would be fired if he talked to the American people about the real cost, if he talked to Congress about the real cost. When he was threatened, he was threatened with the loss of his job by a Bush political appointee who is now a drug company lobbyist.

These actions, Mr. Speaker, by the Bush administration and its drug company allies raise serious questions of judgment and serious questions of conduct by those elected officials and appointed officials, by the President, by the head of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, now a drug company lobbyist. I hope these questions will receive careful scrutiny. And still they raise the basic question: If the Republican Medicare bill is so good, why do they have to sell it so hard using 80 million taxpayer dollars?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush made a campaign trip to Cleveland to speak to small business people to explain his economic policy and to try to answer why Ohio has lost 300,000 jobs in the last 3 years; to try to explain why Ohio has lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs; that one out of every six manufacturing jobs in Ohio has disappeared, likely permanently for most of them. One out of six jobs in manufacturing has disappeared since President Bush took office.

He also came to Ohio to answer why the head of his council, the chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, said that outsourcing of jobs, jobs moving overseas, that Mr. Mankiw said and the President signed a report supporting this, that outsourcing was a good thing because it makes the economy more efficient.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the President needs to explain a little better. Last week, I was in Akron, in my district. Akron, Ohio. I spoke to some company owners who own small machine shops with 50 employees, 30 employees, or 100 employees, but all small manufacturing businesses. One owner of a machine shop came up to me before I spoke. He gave me a stack of these fliers. He actually gave me about four times this many, about six or seven inches of fliers. He told me that he gets about this many fliers every month, and he says these fliers are auction fliers. They basically are notifications from companies all over the United States that are having fire sales; that are having going-out-of- business sales.

Mr. Speaker, here is an auction flyer that says high-tech manufacturing plant closing in Elk Grove, Indiana.

Another one is a plant closed, everything sells, from Verona, Pennsylvania.

Here are two complete stamping and machine tool shops closing. They are selling all their equipment. They are looking for buyers. This is from Oak Brook, Illinois.

Here is a plant closing, everything must sell, from North Carolina.

Another one here from Marion, Ohio, complete shop close-out auction. The absolute auction, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, in my district, complete liquidation of the Cuyahoga Falls plant.

Precision C&C job shop downsizing because of outsourcing, from Scottsboro, Alabama.

Another one from Massachusetts, large-capacity fabricating and machine shop closing.

Another one, 3 days, two tremendous public auctions, two companies, machinery and equipment and real estate. Plant closed, everything must go, real estate for sale.

Another company, plant closed, everything sells.

Another one from Ross, Ohio, plant closing due to relocation overseas.

Another one from Medina, Ohio, facility closed, all must go.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the President understands the depths of this problem in this country. These are companies, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of companies representing hundreds of thousands of workers who are going out of business, who are downsizing, who are shipping their jobs overseas; yet the President says that he supports outsourcing, that outsourcing is a good thing.

The President needs to look in the eye of some of those 800,000 workers in this country who have seen their unemployment compensation expire in the last 3 months, and this Republican Congress refuses to extend those benefits. It is not just 800,000 workers. It is 800,000 families; it is millions of children; it is communities; it is our schools. Everyone is affected by the plant closings.

The President's answer, if there is bad economic news, and if he looked at some of these plant closings, fire sales, going out of business auction brochures, he would say we need to do more tax cuts for the wealthy, maybe some of it will trickle down and create jobs; we need to do more trade agreements like NAFTA. That is the President's answer to every bad piece of economic news. When the President sees unemployment goes up, he says more tax cuts for the most privileged and more trade agreements that hemorrhage jobs overseas.

When the President sees bad economic numbers, terrible trade deficits, the highest in history, our trade deficit with China alone is now $124 billion, and that is where a lot of these companies are going, the President's answer is we need more trade agreements like NAFTA and tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pass Crane-Rangel, which will give incentives for domestic manufacturers and small businesses. We need to extend unemployment compensation to those 800,000 families.

Mr. Speaker, the President flew Air Force 1 to Cleveland today to campaign in my home State of Ohio, talking with 700 or 800 female small business owners. While the President came and talked about small business and job creation and all that he wants to do in a State which has suffered the worst or second worse job loss in the country, the President, at the same time, and this Congress today, this House today considered this legislation, is slashing $94 million from a loan program essential to small business development. He has shrunk the size of the Small Business Administration.

This President basically treats small business one way, with very little assistance, and large businesses, like the Halliburton Corporation, which still pays Vice President Cheney $3,000 a month from their payroll, the Halliburton Corporation, very differently.

The President really does not get it when he comes to a State like Ohio, a State where we have lost 166,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office, 300,000 jobs overall since he took office; one out of six manufacturing jobs in the State of Ohio has simply disappeared in the last 3 years. The President's solution to all of this is continued tax cuts for the most privileged people, with the hope that some of that money will trickle down and create jobs.

The other solution the President has is more trade agreements, NAFTA- like trade agreements, that ship jobs overseas; that hemorrhage jobs to Mexico, to China, and all over the world. He continues, as he campaigned in Cleveland today to those small business owners, he continued to say more tax cuts for the most privileged and more trade agreements. And, clearly, for 3 years that has not worked. One-sixth of our manufacturing base is gone in Ohio and about one seventh of the manufacturing base around the country.

That was really brought home to me last week. I was in Akron, Ohio, speaking to a group of owners of machine shops, about 60 people. And a gentleman came forward and he dropped a stack of brochures, leaflets like this. He dropped about four times this many, and he said this is what I get in about a month in the mail from companies around the country. And these stacks of brochures, these stacks of leaflets are auction notices for companies going out of business. Every one of these represents a company that is going out of business or is downsizing as a result of the Bush recession.

Here is one plant. Closed, everything sells. Here is another one from Mansfield, Ohio. Two complete stamping

and machine tool shops. They are closing and selling. From North Carolina, public auction. Plant closing. Everything must sell. From Marion, Ohio, complete shop close-out auction. From Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, in my district, absolute auction. Everything is going. From Scottsboro, Alabama, precision job shop downsizing. Another one here for a CNC machining tool room and production machinery. Excess equipment due to corporate outsourcing.

Excess equipment due to corporate outsourcing. President Bush's top economic adviser the other day said outsourcing is a good thing when these plants move overseas and they ship jobs overseas, because it makes our businesses more efficient. Tell that to the 50 or 60 workers that worked at this plant when the owners of this plant say excess equipment, we are selling due to corporate outsourcing.

From Massachusetts, a large-capacity fabricating and machine shop closing. Another one from Chicago. Six CNC lathes, 12 chuckers, 22 bar machines sold. Surplus to the continuing operations. They have lost businesses and they are selling most of their equipment. Here is another one. Three days, two tremendous public auctions. Machinery, equipment, and real estate. Plant's closed, everything must go. Real estate for sale. Here is another one that says Dominion Castings Foundry, equipment machine facility. Plant closed, everything sells. Another one from Baltimore, Maryland. Complete facility selling. Another, 5-day public auction. Plant closing due to relocation. Another one, on and on and on. This company is closing for the same reasons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that these places are closing and the President's response is more tax cuts. That is not working. More trade agreements hemorrhaging jobs overseas. That is not working. That is bad enough, but there are 800,000 Americans whose unemployment compensation has expired in the last 3 months. That is 800,000 workers, 800,000 families living in communities around this country; and the President and this Congress, the Republican leadership in this Congress, will not extend their unemployment compensation. That is morally wrong. It is bad for our country, it is bad for our communities, it is bad for our families, and it is bad for our workers.