Economic Development Act of 2005

Mr. President, for more than a decade, I have spoken out about the need to fundamentally reorient our approach to health care in America--to reorient it towards prevention, wellness and self care.

I don't think you'll find too many people who would argue with the statement that if you get sick, the best place in the world to get the care you need is here in America. We have the best trained, highest- skilled health professionals in the world. We have cutting-edge, state- of-the-art equipment and technology. We have world-class health care facilities and research institutions.

But, when it comes to helping people stay healthy and stay out of the hospital, we fall woefully short. In the U.S., we spend in excess of $1.8 trillion a year on health care. Fully 75 percent of that total is accounted for by chronic diseases--things like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. And what these diseases have in common is that--in so many cases--they are preventable.

In the United States, we fail to make an up-front investment in prevention. So we end up spending hundreds of billions on hospitalization, treatment, and disability. This is foolish--and, clearly, it is unsustainable. In fact, I've long said that we don't have a health care system here in America, we have a ``sick care'' system. And it is costing us dearly both in terms of health care costs and premature deaths.

Consider the cost of major chronic diseases--diseases that, as I said, are so often preventable.

For starters the annual cost of obesity is $117 billion. For cardiovascular disease is about $352 billion. For diabetes it's $132 billion. For smoking it's more than $75 billion. And for mental illness it's $150 billion; indeed, major depression is the leading cause of disability in the United States.

Now, if I bought a new car, drove that car off the lot, and never maintained it--never checked the oil, never checked the transmission fluid, never got it tuned up--you'd think I was crazy, not to mention grossly irresponsible. The common-sense principle with an automobile is: ``I pay a little now to keep the car maintained, or I pay a whole lot later.''

Well, it's the same with our national health priorities. Right now, our health care system is in a downward spiral. We are not paying a little now; so we are paying a whole lot later.

For example, we are failing to address the nation's growing obesity epidemic. Today 65 percent of our population is overweight or obese. Obesity is associated with numerous health problems and increased risks of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and several types of cancer, to name just a few.

Another contributing factor to our health crisis is tobacco. We don't hear as much about the dangers of tobacco use, today, as we used to. That's because there is a perception that we've turned the corner--that we've done all that we need to do. But that perception is not accurate. In 2002, 46 million American adults regularly smoked cigarettes--that 26 percent of our population. Nearly 40 percent of college-aged students smoke. What this means is that after decades of education and efforts to stop tobacco use, more than one in every four Americans is still addicted to nicotine and smoking.

Mental health is another enormous challenge that we are grossly neglecting. Mental health and chronic disease are intertwined. They can trigger one another. It is about time we stop separating the mind and body when discussing health. Prevention and mental health promotion programs should be integrated into our schools, workplaces, and communities along with physical health screenings and education. Surely, at the outset of the 21st century, it's time to move beyond the lingering shame and stigma that often attend mental health.

Seventy percent of all deaths in the U.S. are now linked to chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. In so many cases, these chronic diseases are caused by poor nutrition, physical inactivity, tobacco use, and untreated mental illness. This is unacceptable.

After many months of meetings and discussions with Iowans and experts across the nation, today I am re-introducing comprehensive legislation designed to transform America's ``sick care'' system into a true health care system--one that emphasizes prevention and health promotion.

I am calling this bill the HeLP America Act, with HeLP as an acronym for Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention. The aim is to give individuals and communities the information and tools they need to take charge of their own health.

Because if we are serious about getting control of health-care costs and health-insurance premiums, then we must give people access to preventive care . . . and we must give people the tools they need to stay healthy and stay out of the hospital.

This will take a sustained commitment from government, schools, communities, employers, health officials, and the tobacco and food industries. But a sustained effort can have a huge payoff--for individuals and families, for employers, for society, for government budgets, and for the economy at large.

As I said, the HeLP America Act is comprehensive legislation. It a very complex, multifaceted bill. But, this afternoon, I'd just like to outline the bill's major elements:

The first component addresses healthy kids and schools. Prevention and the development of a healthy habits and lifestyles must begin in the early years, with our children. Unfortunately, today, we are heading in exactly the wrong direction. More and more children all across America are suffering from poor nutrition, physical inactivity, mental health issues, and tobacco use.

For example, just since the 1980s, the rates of obesity have doubled in children and tripled in teens. Even more alarming is the fact that a growing number of children are experiencing what used to be thought of primarily as adult health problems. Almost two-thirds--60 percent--of overweight children have at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor. Recent studies of children have shown that increasing weight, greater salt consumption from fast food, and poor eating habits have contributed to the rise in blood pressure, higher cholesterol levels, and a shockingly rapid increase in adult-onset diabetes.

The HeLP America Act will more than double funding for the successful PEP program, which promotes health and physical education programs in our public schools. I find it disturbing that more than one third of youngsters in grades 9 through 12 do not regularly engage in adequate physical activity. This is a shame, because studies show that regular physical activity boosts self-esteem and improves health.

The HeLP America Act will also expand the Harkin Fruit and Vegetable Program to provide more free fresh fruits and vegetables in more public schools. The bill will also encourage give schools incentives to create healthier environments, including goals for nutrition education and physical activity.

The HeLP America Act would also establish a grant program to provide mental health screenings and prevention programs in schools, along with training for school staff to help them recognize children exhibiting early warning signs. It will improve access to mental health services for students and their families.

New to the HeLP Act this year is a strong focus on breastfeeding promotion. Sound nutrition begins the moment a baby is born and there is a vast body of scientific evidence that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that mom's milk is the ideal form of nutrition to promote child health. But in the U.S. we don't do enough to encourage breastfeeding. The HeLP America Act seeks to remove some of those barriers and to encourage new mothers to breastfeed.

The second broad component of the HeLP American Act addresses Healthy Communities and Workplaces. For example, the bill aims to create a healthier workforce by providing tax

credits to businesses that offer wellness programs and health club memberships. Studies show that, on average, every $1.00 that is invested in workplace wellness returns $3.00 in savings on health costs, absences from work, and so on.

At a field hearing in Iowa last year, I heard from Mr. Lynn Olson, CEO of Ottumwa Regional Health Center. The Center offers a comprehensive wellness program for its employees, including reduced health insurance premiums for those employees who meet individual health goals. The Center has seen tremendous savings from their investment in health promotion.

My bill also creates a grant program for communities, encouraging them to develop localized plans to promote healthier lifestyles. For example, we want to support efforts like those going on in Webster County and Mason City, IA, where mall walking programs have been expanded into community-wide initiatives to promote wellness.

At the same time, the bill provides new incentives for the construction of bike paths and sidewalks to encourage more physical activity, especially walking. It is shocking that, today, roughly one- quarter of walking trips take place on roads without sidewalks or shoulders. And bike lanes are available for only about 5 percent of bike trips.

As my colleagues know, I have been a longstanding advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. So I have given special attention to health-promotion programs and activities that include this population. I just mentioned the bill's incentives to create bike lanes and sidewalks on newly constructed roads. This will make a big difference to people with disabilities, who often are forced to travel in the street alongside cars because there are no sidewalks or bike lanes available for wheelchairs.

The Centers for Disease Control has funded a program called Living Well with a Disability, which has actually decreased secondary conditions and led to improved health for participants. The program is an eight-session workshop that teaches individuals with disabilities how to change their nutrition and level of physical activity. The program not only increases healthy activities for people with disabilities, but has also led to a 10 percent decline in the cost for medical services, particularly emergency-room care and hospital stays.

In addition, my bill includes a Working Well with a Disability program, which will build partnerships between employers and vocational rehabilitation offices with the aim of developing wellness programs in the workplace.

Mr. President, the third component of the HeLP America Act addresses Responsible Marketing and Consumer Awareness. Having accurate, readily available information about the nutritional value of the foods we eat is the first step toward improving overall nutrition. Unfortunately, because of all the gimmicks and hype that marketers use to entice us to buy their products, determining the nutritional value of the foods we buy can be problematic--especially in restaurants. This is why the HeLP America bill proposes to extend the nutritional labeling requirements of the National Labeling and Education Act, which currently covers the vast majority of retail foods, to restaurants foods as well, which were exempted from the NLEA when it first passed.

The marketing of junk food--especially to kids--is out of control. It was estimated that junk food marketers, alone, spent $15 billion in 2002 promoting their fare. And, I don't have to tell you, they are not advertising broccoli and apples. No, the majority of these ads are for candy and fast food--foods that are high in sugar, salt, fat, and calories.

Children--especially those under 8 years of age--do not always have the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. The number of TV ads that kids see over the course of their childhood has doubled from 20,000 to 40,000. The sad thing is that, way back in the 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission recommended banning TV advertising to kids. And what was Congress's response? We made it even harder for the FTC to regulate advertising for children than it is to regulate advertising for adults. My bill will restore the authority of the FTC to regulate marketing to kids, and it encourages the FTC to do so.

The fourth component of the HeLP American Act addresses Reimbursements for Prevention Services. Right now, our medical system is setup to pay doctors to perform a $20,000 gastric bypass instead of offering advice on how to avoid such risky procedures. The bill will reimburse and reward physicians for practicing prevention and screenings. It will also expand Medicare coverage to pay for counseling for nutrition and physical activity, mental health screenings, and smoking-cessation programs. It also would establish a demonstration project in the Medicare program, long overdue in my opinion, under which we can learn how best to use our health care dollars to prevent chronic diseases rather than just manage them once they've occurred. Frankly, it's a little embarrassing that we haven't done this before.

Finally, let me point out that the HeLP America Act will be paid for by creating a new National Health Promotion Trust Fund paid for through penalties on tobacco companies that fail to cut smoking rates among children, by ending the taxpayer subsidy of tobacco advertising, and also by reinstating the top income tax rates for wealthy Americans.

It's time for the Senate to lead America in a new direction. We need a new health care paradigm--a prevention paradigm.

Some will argue that avoiding obesity and preventable disease is strictly a matter of personal responsibility. Well, we all agree that individuals should act responsibly. I'm all for personal responsibility. But I also believe in government responsibility. Government has a responsibility to ensure that people have the information and tools and incentives they need to take charge of their health. And that is what the HeLP America Act is all about.

Of course, this description of my bill just scratches the surface. The HeLP America Act is comprehensive. It is ambitious. And I fully expect an uphill fight in some quarters of Congress.

But just as with the Americans with Disabilities Act 14 years ago, I am committed to doing whatever it takes--and for as long as it takes-- to pass this critically needed legislation.

It's time to heed the Golden Rule of Holes, which says: When you are in a hole, stop digging. Well, we have dug one whopper of a hole by failing to emphasize prevention and wellness. And it's time to stop digging.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Development Act of 2005 to authorize States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes.

This legislation is crucial to preserve tax incentives as an important tool for State and local governments to promote economic development in the wake of last year's decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler.

In its decision in Cuno, the Sixth Circuit struck down Ohio's manufacturing machinery and equipment tax credit, which I helped enact while I was Governor of Ohio, on grounds that it violated the ``dormant'' Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the tax incentive violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it granted preferential tax treatment to companies that invest within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision has had severe repercussions across the country. The decision immediately cast doubt on the constitutionality of tax incentives presently offered by all fifty States. As

a result, States and businesses have been reluctant to go forward with new projects that depend on the availability of tax incentives out of concern that the Cuno decision may be used to invalidate those incentives. This legal uncertainty has worsened an already challenging economic environment. Furthermore, the decision threatens to undermine federalism by dramatically restricting the ability of States to craft their tax codes to promote economic development in the manner they determine is best. If left standing, this decision will handcuff the States in the Sixth Circuit, as well as States in other circuits where the court chooses to follow Cuno, in their efforts to promote economic growth and create jobs. Additionally, it will cripple their ability to compete internationally. In today's competitive economic environment, we can not afford to unilaterally discard the use of tax incentive to attract business to this country. As a former Governor who had to compete against Japan, Canada, China and Europe for new business projects, I know just how important a role tax incentives can play in attracting new businesses. I can assure you that our competitors are certainly not going to stop using tax incentives. Neither should we.

Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to determine which State actions violate the Commerce Clause. The purpose of the Economic Development Act of 2005 is therefore to have Congress override the decision in Cuno by authorizing States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes. The legislation would remove the legal uncertainty surrounding tax incentives created by the Cuno decision and preserve the States' power to design their tax codes to promote economic development.

The history of the tax incentive struck down in Cuno demonstrates the important role tax incentives can play in promoting economic development. When I was Governor of Ohio, at my request and as part of my jobs incentive package, the Ohio Legislature enacted the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive to encourage businesses to expand their operations in Ohio and to help draw new businesses to Ohio. It worked. Between 1993 and 1997, Ohio was ranked number one in the Nation by Site Selection and Industrial Development magazine three times for highest number of new facilities, expanded facilities, and new manufacturing plants. Since the program's inception, businesses have been eligible to claim a total of $2 billion in credits toward $34 billion in new equipment investments.

Currently, this incentive is part of an incentive package being offered to automobile manufacturer DaimlerChrysler in support of its plans for a $200 million expansion of their Jeep plant. The ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Cuno, however, puts that expansion in jeopardy and threatens to undermine Ohio's competitiveness in attracting new businesses.

In the Cuno decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, given by Ohio to DaimlerChrysler as part of its incentive package, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce by granting preferential tax treatment to companies that expanded within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision is troubling for several reasons. First, I believe the Sixth Circuit failed to appreciate the need for States to condition the availability of certain tax incentives on the undertaking of the specified economic activity within a State. In the case of the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, Ohio needed to limit the availability of the tax incentive to the investments undertaken in the State. Otherwise, Ohio would have been giving companies a tax incentive for activity that did not benefit the State. In other words, Ohio would have been effectively subsidizing investment in other States. We all know that in economics there is no free lunch and States should not be forced to provide a free lunch when they choose to give tax incentives. If Ohio or any other State is willing to forego tax revenue, it should be allowed to receive something in return, namely investment or other economic activity in the State. Accordingly, Ohio's tax incentive did not discriminate against interstate commerce. It merely required companies, if they chose to take advantage of the incentive, to undertake the investment in Ohio, the same State that would be foregoing tax revenue to provide the incentive.

There is also a little legal fiction present in the Cuno decision. The court states that Ohio could have provided a direct subsidy to companies that undertook investment in the State. Because Ohio decided to structure the program as a tax credit, however, the court said that it ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. I do not see how a direct subsidy does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, but a tax credit does. They are economically the same.

If left standing, the Cuno decision will have a particularly detrimental effect on the U.S. manufacturing sector. From rising energy and health care costs to frivolous lawsuits and unfair international trade practices, the U.S. manufacturing sector and the hard working men and women who drive it are getting squeezed from all sides. Despite all they are up against, it's a testament to their ability and determination that they are still the most productive manufacturers in the world. This Sixth Circuit decision, however, is a new roadblock that threatens to take away one of the most effective and efficient means for assisting manufacturers who want to create new jobs here in America. The Economic Development Act of 2005 will make sure that manufacturers don't lose key tax incentives just when such incentives are needed the most.

The Cuno decision also sets a bad precedent that, if not checked, could upset our carefully balanced federal system. One of the most ingenious aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that it leaves a great deal of power with the States. It gives the States flexibility to devise their own solutions and, in the process, fosters innovation in government. Thus, the States are the laboratories of our democracy and an innovation they have developed to help create jobs and prosperity are programs that encourage new growth through tax incentives for training, job creation, and investment in new plants and equipment. The availability of tax incentives was critical to our success in Ohio and in being number one in new plant construction and expansion. Because Ohio had the ability to devise tax incentives that fit its economic development needs, we were able to create thousands of new jobs. My legislation will guarantee that the States remain our engines of innovation.

This legislation is something that Congress should have done a long time ago. The courts are not well-suited to making the often complex policy decisions regarding whether a tax incentive truly discriminates against interstate commerce and hinders the creation of a national market, or whether a tax incentive actually fosters innovation and job growth. Such decisions necessarily involve a careful weighing of competing and often mutually exclusive interests, and therefore should be made by Congress. Moreover, judicial decisions often fail to provide bright lines on which incentives run afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause, injecting uncertainty about the validity of certain tax incentives that makes businesses weary of relying on them and reduce their effectiveness. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has called its dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence a ``quagmire.'' Hence, it is time that Congress provide some clear rules on the treatment of tax incentives under the Commerce Clause.

As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated nearly a half- century ago:

At best, this Court can only act negatively; it can

determine whether a specific state tax is imposed in

violation of the Commerce Clause. Such decisions must

necessarily depend on the application of rough and ready

legal concepts. We cannot make a detailed inquiry into the

incidence of diverse economic burdens in order to

determine the extent to which such burdens conflict with

the necessities of national economic life. Neither can we

devise appropriate standards for dividing up national

revenue on the basis of more or less abstract principles

of constitutional law, which cannot be responsive to the

subtleties of the interrelated economies of Nation and

State.

The problem calls for solution by devising a congressional

policy. Congress alone can provide for a full and thorough

canvassing of the multitudinous and intricate factors which

compose the problem of the taxing

freedom of the States and the needed limits on such state

taxing power. Congressional committees can make studies and

give the claims of the individual States adequate hearing

before the ultimate legislative formulation of policy is made

by the representatives of all the States. . . . Congress

alone can formulate policies founded upon economic realities.

. . .

The Economic Development Act of 2005 is a good first step toward providing the prudent and carefully considered legislation that Justice Frankfurter urged the Congress to pass nearly a half century ago.

At its core, the Economic Development Act of 2005 recognizes that decisions should be made, if possible, at the State and local level. States make and should make decisions about the programs and services they want to provide with their tax dollars, not the least of which are economic development programs. Highway funding, education funding, welfare funding, and funding for seniors programs all vary from state to state because State legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens, make choices and set priorities. This has allowed government policy to reflect the diversity of interests in our great republic and results in better and more responsive government. Accordingly, states should be allowed to prioritize economic development in an effort to create jobs and prosperity for their citizens, and, yes, attract business from outside their State. If States choose to use tax incentives to promote economic development, then that is not a violation of the interstate commerce clause, that's simply their choice. It is called federalism, and it should not be thwarted by the courts.

There are a couple of points about this legislation that I would like to discuss. First, this legislation is carefully crafted to protect the most common and benign forms of tax incentives, but not to authorize those tax incentives that truly discriminate against interstate commerce. I believe this bill strikes the right balance between protecting States' tax rights and preserving long-established protections against truly discriminatory State tax practices. Second, this legislation does not invalidate any tax incentives. It only authorizes tax incentives. Any tax incentive not covered by the legislation's authorization is simply subject to the traditional dormant Commerce Clause review by the courts. Third, this legislation does not require any state to provide tax incentives. Although I had success using tax incentives to foster economic growth in Ohio while I was Governor, I recognize that some states have concerns about whether and how to offer tax incentives and therefore believe it should be left to the states to resolve these concerns.

I am pleased that this legislation is being co-sponsored by all of the Senators representing States in the Sixth Circuit. We all realize that the right of states to make their own decisions about the programs and services they offer within their boundaries is their own and should not be taken away. Moreover, if the Supreme Court fails to review the Cuno decision, then our States, the States in the Sixth Circuit, will be at a competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses against other states which are not affected by the Cuno decision and can offer tax incentives.

The bill has also been endorsed by Governor Bob Taft of Ohio, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of Mayors and the Federation of Tax Administrators, as well as by broad-based business coalitions and the Teamsters.

I am hopeful that the seriousness of this issue, and the severity of the ruling's possible ramifications, will allow us to see quick and positive consideration of my bill. The States are in a crisis mode because of this ruling. In Ohio, as I'm sure is the case across the country, many important projects have been put on hold as we await the court's further action.

The challenges that manufacturers and workers face today are daunting but surmountable. The last thing we need, however, is an artificial legal hurdle that threatens to trip us up. I urge my colleagues to support the Economic Development Act of 2005 so that we can preserve the ability of the States to foster economic development and help put our economy, and especially our manufacturing industries, back on the road to recovery and prosperity.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Development Act of 2005 to authorize States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes.

This legislation is crucial to preserve tax incentives as an important tool for State and local governments to promote economic development in the wake of last year's decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler.

In its decision in Cuno, the Sixth Circuit struck down Ohio's manufacturing machinery and equipment tax credit, which I helped enact while I was Governor of Ohio, on grounds that it violated the ``dormant'' Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the tax incentive violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it granted preferential tax treatment to companies that invest within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision has had severe repercussions across the country. The decision immediately cast doubt on the constitutionality of tax incentives presently offered by all fifty States. As

a result, States and businesses have been reluctant to go forward with new projects that depend on the availability of tax incentives out of concern that the Cuno decision may be used to invalidate those incentives. This legal uncertainty has worsened an already challenging economic environment. Furthermore, the decision threatens to undermine federalism by dramatically restricting the ability of States to craft their tax codes to promote economic development in the manner they determine is best. If left standing, this decision will handcuff the States in the Sixth Circuit, as well as States in other circuits where the court chooses to follow Cuno, in their efforts to promote economic growth and create jobs. Additionally, it will cripple their ability to compete internationally. In today's competitive economic environment, we can not afford to unilaterally discard the use of tax incentive to attract business to this country. As a former Governor who had to compete against Japan, Canada, China and Europe for new business projects, I know just how important a role tax incentives can play in attracting new businesses. I can assure you that our competitors are certainly not going to stop using tax incentives. Neither should we.

Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to determine which State actions violate the Commerce Clause. The purpose of the Economic Development Act of 2005 is therefore to have Congress override the decision in Cuno by authorizing States to provide tax incentives for economic development purposes. The legislation would remove the legal uncertainty surrounding tax incentives created by the Cuno decision and preserve the States' power to design their tax codes to promote economic development.

The history of the tax incentive struck down in Cuno demonstrates the important role tax incentives can play in promoting economic development. When I was Governor of Ohio, at my request and as part of my jobs incentive package, the Ohio Legislature enacted the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive to encourage businesses to expand their operations in Ohio and to help draw new businesses to Ohio. It worked. Between 1993 and 1997, Ohio was ranked number one in the Nation by Site Selection and Industrial Development magazine three times for highest number of new facilities, expanded facilities, and new manufacturing plants. Since the program's inception, businesses have been eligible to claim a total of $2 billion in credits toward $34 billion in new equipment investments.

Currently, this incentive is part of an incentive package being offered to automobile manufacturer DaimlerChrysler in support of its plans for a $200 million expansion of their Jeep plant. The ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Cuno, however, puts that expansion in jeopardy and threatens to undermine Ohio's competitiveness in attracting new businesses.

In the Cuno decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, given by Ohio to DaimlerChrysler as part of its incentive package, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce by granting preferential tax treatment to companies that expanded within the State rather than in other States.

The Cuno decision is troubling for several reasons. First, I believe the Sixth Circuit failed to appreciate the need for States to condition the availability of certain tax incentives on the undertaking of the specified economic activity within a State. In the case of the manufacturing machinery and equipment tax incentive, Ohio needed to limit the availability of the tax incentive to the investments undertaken in the State. Otherwise, Ohio would have been giving companies a tax incentive for activity that did not benefit the State. In other words, Ohio would have been effectively subsidizing investment in other States. We all know that in economics there is no free lunch and States should not be forced to provide a free lunch when they choose to give tax incentives. If Ohio or any other State is willing to forego tax revenue, it should be allowed to receive something in return, namely investment or other economic activity in the State. Accordingly, Ohio's tax incentive did not discriminate against interstate commerce. It merely required companies, if they chose to take advantage of the incentive, to undertake the investment in Ohio, the same State that would be foregoing tax revenue to provide the incentive.

There is also a little legal fiction present in the Cuno decision. The court states that Ohio could have provided a direct subsidy to companies that undertook investment in the State. Because Ohio decided to structure the program as a tax credit, however, the court said that it ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. I do not see how a direct subsidy does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, but a tax credit does. They are economically the same.

If left standing, the Cuno decision will have a particularly detrimental effect on the U.S. manufacturing sector. From rising energy and health care costs to frivolous lawsuits and unfair international trade practices, the U.S. manufacturing sector and the hard working men and women who drive it are getting squeezed from all sides. Despite all they are up against, it's a testament to their ability and determination that they are still the most productive manufacturers in the world. This Sixth Circuit decision, however, is a new roadblock that threatens to take away one of the most effective and efficient means for assisting manufacturers who want to create new jobs here in America. The Economic Development Act of 2005 will make sure that manufacturers don't lose key tax incentives just when such incentives are needed the most.

The Cuno decision also sets a bad precedent that, if not checked, could upset our carefully balanced federal system. One of the most ingenious aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that it leaves a great deal of power with the States. It gives the States flexibility to devise their own solutions and, in the process, fosters innovation in government. Thus, the States are the laboratories of our democracy and an innovation they have developed to help create jobs and prosperity are programs that encourage new growth through tax incentives for training, job creation, and investment in new plants and equipment. The availability of tax incentives was critical to our success in Ohio and in being number one in new plant construction and expansion. Because Ohio had the ability to devise tax incentives that fit its economic development needs, we were able to create thousands of new jobs. My legislation will guarantee that the States remain our engines of innovation.

This legislation is something that Congress should have done a long time ago. The courts are not well-suited to making the often complex policy decisions regarding whether a tax incentive truly discriminates against interstate commerce and hinders the creation of a national market, or whether a tax incentive actually fosters innovation and job growth. Such decisions necessarily involve a careful weighing of competing and often mutually exclusive interests, and therefore should be made by Congress. Moreover, judicial decisions often fail to provide bright lines on which incentives run afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause, injecting uncertainty about the validity of certain tax incentives that makes businesses weary of relying on them and reduce their effectiveness. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has called its dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence a ``quagmire.'' Hence, it is time that Congress provide some clear rules on the treatment of tax incentives under the Commerce Clause.

As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated nearly a half- century ago:

At best, this Court can only act negatively; it can

determine whether a specific state tax is imposed in

violation of the Commerce Clause. Such decisions must

necessarily depend on the application of rough and ready

legal concepts. We cannot make a detailed inquiry into the

incidence of diverse economic burdens in order to

determine the extent to which such burdens conflict with

the necessities of national economic life. Neither can we

devise appropriate standards for dividing up national

revenue on the basis of more or less abstract principles

of constitutional law, which cannot be responsive to the

subtleties of the interrelated economies of Nation and

State.

The problem calls for solution by devising a congressional

policy. Congress alone can provide for a full and thorough

canvassing of the multitudinous and intricate factors which

compose the problem of the taxing

freedom of the States and the needed limits on such state

taxing power. Congressional committees can make studies and

give the claims of the individual States adequate hearing

before the ultimate legislative formulation of policy is made

by the representatives of all the States. . . . Congress

alone can formulate policies founded upon economic realities.

. . .

The Economic Development Act of 2005 is a good first step toward providing the prudent and carefully considered legislation that Justice Frankfurter urged the Congress to pass nearly a half century ago.

At its core, the Economic Development Act of 2005 recognizes that decisions should be made, if possible, at the State and local level. States make and should make decisions about the programs and services they want to provide with their tax dollars, not the least of which are economic development programs. Highway funding, education funding, welfare funding, and funding for seniors programs all vary from state to state because State legislatures, acting on behalf of their citizens, make choices and set priorities. This has allowed government policy to reflect the diversity of interests in our great republic and results in better and more responsive government. Accordingly, states should be allowed to prioritize economic development in an effort to create jobs and prosperity for their citizens, and, yes, attract business from outside their State. If States choose to use tax incentives to promote economic development, then that is not a violation of the interstate commerce clause, that's simply their choice. It is called federalism, and it should not be thwarted by the courts.

There are a couple of points about this legislation that I would like to discuss. First, this legislation is carefully crafted to protect the most common and benign forms of tax incentives, but not to authorize those tax incentives that truly discriminate against interstate commerce. I believe this bill strikes the right balance between protecting States' tax rights and preserving long-established protections against truly discriminatory State tax practices. Second, this legislation does not invalidate any tax incentives. It only authorizes tax incentives. Any tax incentive not covered by the legislation's authorization is simply subject to the traditional dormant Commerce Clause review by the courts. Third, this legislation does not require any state to provide tax incentives. Although I had success using tax incentives to foster economic growth in Ohio while I was Governor, I recognize that some states have concerns about whether and how to offer tax incentives and therefore believe it should be left to the states to resolve these concerns.

I am pleased that this legislation is being co-sponsored by all of the Senators representing States in the Sixth Circuit. We all realize that the right of states to make their own decisions about the programs and services they offer within their boundaries is their own and should not be taken away. Moreover, if the Supreme Court fails to review the Cuno decision, then our States, the States in the Sixth Circuit, will be at a competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses against other states which are not affected by the Cuno decision and can offer tax incentives.

The bill has also been endorsed by Governor Bob Taft of Ohio, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of Mayors and the Federation of Tax Administrators, as well as by broad-based business coalitions and the Teamsters.

I am hopeful that the seriousness of this issue, and the severity of the ruling's possible ramifications, will allow us to see quick and positive consideration of my bill. The States are in a crisis mode because of this ruling. In Ohio, as I'm sure is the case across the country, many important projects have been put on hold as we await the court's further action.

The challenges that manufacturers and workers face today are daunting but surmountable. The last thing we need, however, is an artificial legal hurdle that threatens to trip us up. I urge my colleagues to support the Economic Development Act of 2005 so that we can preserve the ability of the States to foster economic development and help put our economy, and especially our manufacturing industries, back on the road to recovery and prosperity.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce legislation that will provide a surviving spouse with two years of child care eligibility on any military instillation or Federal facility with a child care center. The legislation was inspired by our work on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In February the committee held an important hearing on improving survivor benefits and the government's role in helping survivors cope with the loss of a loved one. All too often surviving spouses are forced to make difficult, life changing decisions alone. Both Senator Clinton and I are determined to provide as much help as possible to those who must bear the burden of loss, particularly those with young children. By providing two years of child care eligibility, our goal is to ensure that a surviving spouse has the time and tools necessary to make a healthy adjustment to life after the servicemember's death. Many decisions face survivors, most importantly, how to make a living. Often that means having to re-enter the work force after years of being a working mother. The question of how to adequately care for young children while trying to find employment or restart a career should not be an issue. Further, we have expanded this eligibility to include access to child care centers in other Federal facilities. This will aide surviving spouses with children if they are in the process of relocating to an area of the country without a military base nearby, but in the proximity of a local Federal building. I am honored that Senator Clinton is working with me on this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would delay the implementation of the 2005 round of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment report issued by the Department of Defense on May 13, 2005. The bill would postpone the execution of any decisions recommended in the report until certain anticipated events, having potentially large or unforeseen implications for our military force structure, have occurred, and both the department and Congress have had a chance to fully study the effects such events will have on our base requirements.

The bill identifies three principal actions that must occur before implementation of BRAC 2005. First, there must be a complete analysis and consideration of the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Structures. The overseas base commission has itself called upon the Department of Defense to ``slow down and take a breath'' before moving forward on basing decisions without knowing exactly where units will be returned and if those installations are prepared or equipped to support units that will return from garrisons in Europe, consisting of approximately 70,000 personnel.

Second, BRAC should not occur while this country is engaged in a major war and rotational deployments are still ongoing. We have seen enough disruption of both military and civilian institutions due to the logistical strain brought about by these constant rotations of units and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan without, at the same time, initiating numerous base closures and the multiple transfer of units and missions from base to base. This is simply too much to ask of our military, our communities and the families of our

servicemen and women, already stretched and over-taxed. And frankly, our efforts right now must be devoted to winning the global war on terrorism, not packing up and moving units around the country.

Our bill would delay implementation of BRAC until the Secretary of Defense determines that substantially all major combat units and assets have been returned from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations, whenever that might occur.

Third, to review or implement the BRAC recommendations without having the benefit of either the Commission or Congress studying the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in 2006, and its long-term planning recommendations seems counter-intuitive and completely out of logical sequence. Therefore, the bill requires that Congress receive the QDR and have an opportunity to study its planning recommendations as one of the conditions before implementing BRAC 2005.

Fourth and Fifth: BRAC should not go forward until the implementation and development by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security of the National Maritime Security Strategy; and the completion and implementation of Secretary of Defense's Homeland Defense and Civil Support Directive--only now being drafted. These two planning strategies should be key considerations before beginning any BRAC process.

Finally, once all these conditions have been met, the Secretary of Defense must submit to Congress, not later than one year after the occurrence of the last of these conditions, a report that assesses the relevant factors and recommendations identified by the Commission on Review of Overseas Base Structure; the return of our thousands of troops deployed in overseas garrisons that will return to domestic bases because of either overseas base reduction or the end of our deployments in the war; and, any relevant factors identified by the QDR that would impact, modify, negate or open to reconsideration any of the recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005.

This proposed delay only seems logical and fair. There is no need to rush into decisions, that in a few years from now, could turn out to be colossal mistakes. We can't afford to go back and rebuild installations or relocate high-cost support infrastructure at various points in this country once those installations have been closed or stripped of their valuable capacity to support critical missions. I, therefore, introduce this legislation today and call upon my colleagues to join us in supporting its passage.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the month of May is Stroke Awareness Month, and it is a privilege to join Senators Cochran, Warner, Cantwell, Collins, and Dayton in introducing the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2005. The STOP Stroke Act is a vital step in building a national network of effective care to diagnose and quickly treat victims of stroke and improve the quality of care for stroke patients across America.

For over 20 years, stroke has been the third leading cause of death in our country, affecting about 700,000 Americans a year and killing approximately 163,000 a year. Every 45 seconds, another American suffers a stroke. Every 3 minutes, another American dies. Few families today are untouched by this cruel, debilitating, and often fatal disease that strikes indiscriminately, and robs us of our loved ones. Even for those who survive, a stroke can have devastating consequences. Over half of all survivors are left with a disability.

Prompt treatment with clot-dissolving drugs within three hours of a stroke can dramatically improve these outcomes. Yet, only 2-3 percent of all stroke patients are treated with such a drug within those crucial first three hours. Few Americans recognize the symptoms of stroke, and crucial hours are often lost before a patient receives treatment. Emergency room staffs are often not trained to recognize and manage the symptoms, which further adds to the delay in treatment. Patients at hospitals with primary stroke centers have nearly five times greater chance of receiving clot-dissolving drugs.

Modern medicine is generating new scientific advances that increase the chance of survival and at least partial or even full recovery following a stroke. Physicians are learning to manage strokes more effectively, and they are also learning how to prevent them in the first place.

But science doesn't save lives and protect health by itself. We need to do more to bring new discoveries to the patient and new awareness to the public. That means educating as many people as possible about the warning signs of stroke, so that they know enough to seek medical attention. It means training doctors and nurses in the best techniques of care. It means finding better ways to treat victims as quickly and as effectively as possible--so that they have the best chance of full recovery.

Our bill provides grants to States to implement statewide systems of stroke care that will give health professionals the equipment and training they need to treat this disorder. It also establishes a continuing education program to make sure that medical professionals are well trained and well aware of the newest treatments and prevention strategies. The initial point of contact between a stroke patient and medical care is usually an emergency medical technician. Grants under this bill may be used to train these personnel to provide more effective care to stroke patients in the crucial first few moments after an attack.

The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national media campaign to inform the public about the symptoms of stroke, so that more patients can recognize the symptoms and receive prompt medical care. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of HHS, acting through CDC, to operate the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry, which will collect data about the care of stroke patients and assist in the development of more effective treatments.

The bill also provides new resources for states to improve the standard of care for stroke patients in hospitals, and to increase the quality of care in rural hospitals through improvements in telemedicine.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an excellent article on the inadequate treatment that stroke patients often encounter when ambulances bring them to hospitals with staffs not trained in the early treatment of stroke or lacking the needed equipment to intervene early. Over twenty years ago, the survival of trauma victims was very much dependent on whether the ambulance took them to a hospital with a trauma care center, or to a hospital not equipped to treat traumatic injury. Congress passed the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 1990 that revolutionized the treatment for accident victims. Now in 2005, it is long past time to see that state of the art care is made available to stroke patients as quickly as possible.

Stroke is a national tragedy that leaves no American community unscarred. Fortunately, if the right steps are taken during the brief window of time available, effective treatment can make all the difference between healthy survival and disability or death. We need to do all we can to see that those precious few hours are not wasted. The STOP Stroke Act is a significant step in reaching that goal. May is Stroke Awareness Month, and I urge Congress to act quickly on this legislation, and give stroke victims a far better chance for full recovery.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a Wall Street Journal article of May 9 on this issue be printed in the Record.