A bill to postpone the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.

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. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, as well as the subcommittee leadership for their hard work in crafting the underlying legislation. However, I offer my support for the manager's amendment that seeks to incorporate very important initiatives that were contained in some of the amendments that were made in order by the Committee on Rules.

While the underlying bill before us proposes to provide $620 million for some 175 high priority projects in the State of Texas, there remain issues that will pose significant problems for Houston and for Texas unless this body offers its commitment to address in the future.

Toll credits are a significant resource for transit providers because they can use them in lieu of obtaining a Federal match--thereby greatly expediting the development of major projects that serve the communities. This amendment will cripple the value of the toll credit program.

Without the revenue from toll credits, Texas will have less funding for the reduction of congestion and the improvement of air quality. In reducing an otherwise viable revenue stream, this amendment would restrict local governments like Houston from choosing the best tool to respond to local conditions and priorities. I would have voted against the amendment that would prohibit the tolling of new interstates, including the I-69 Corridor, which lacks an alternate source of financing.

I ask that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure continue its efforts to provide funds to complete the Interstate 69 Corridor. The termination of the Interstate Program in 1995 left no mechanism to finish the Nation's few remaining incomplete Interstates such as I-69. Currently, there is no program to fund major projects which benefit the Nation as a whole but whose costs exceed States' apportioned funds. Based on these needs, I ask my colleagues to include the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program and the Projects of National and Regional Significance provisions in the bill underlying today. Furthermore, I ask that the committee include them at a funding level equal to those included in H.R. 3550.

The Greater Houston area is subdivided into 6 counties: Chambers, Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller, and my District, Harris. Harris County contains the city of Houston and the largest concentration of people. In the year 2000, approximately 3.5 million people lived in Harris County alone--by far the most populous area. Over the next 20 years, the population of the Houston region will continue to grow.

The historic Fourth Ward in Houston is long overdue for major transportation improvements. Within the underlying bill we have before us today are projects that propose to make critical improvements to the Main Street Corridor. The Fourth Ward emerged as Houston's most prominent African-American neighborhood when thousands of freed slaves flooded into the city after emancipation. These newcomers settled on the fringes of the Third, Fifth, and Fourth wards. The Freedmentown area north of San Felipe and the streets west of downtown not only attracted the largest number of the new black residents but also housed the first black churches, schools, and political organizations. Several factors combined to facilitate the subsequent growth of the Fourth Ward's black community. I would ask that my colleagues take these requests under strong consideration after passage and leading into the conference report.

Improvements to Houston's and Texas' infrastructure will be the priority for me and for my colleagues. Statistically, Houstonians travel more miles per day than there are miles between the earth and the sun. The distance between the earth and the sun is about 93 million miles. Houstonians drive about 156 million miles per day.

The manager's amendment proposes key technical and program improvements to the underlying bill language. In particular, I support the changes to the calculation of ``Revenue Aligned Budget Authority,'' RABA; re-establishment of budgetary firewalls for highways and transit programs; reauthorization of the Swift Rail Act at $100 million per year, title IX of the bill; and extension of revenue provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

Moreover, I support the improvements to the bill proposed in the manager's amendment. In particular, due to the tremendous bipartisan efforts of my colleagues, the amendment now includes language to guarantee that TEA 21's 90.5 percent minimum guarantee is protected, with a scope defined as no less than 92.6 percent of the highway program funds in the bill. This is a significant improvement over the bill passed by the House last year. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his work in ensuring that this measure will protect these provisions, allowing the House to move into conference in a stronger negotiating position toward achieving a higher MG above 90.5 percent. The manager's amendment makes this a better bill for Houstonians and for Texans.

I would like to offer my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia that will ensure that tolls are applied equally to all users of toll facilities. This amendment would eliminate language in the underlying bill that requires lower tolls to be charged to low income drivers. Since the administration of differential tolls may be challenging for our existing and future toll authorities, this amendment will make important adjustments to the underlying bill.

Secondly, I support the Burgess amendment, which would change the calculation for transportation development credits to ensure that Texas and other States with toll facilities are able to take full advantage of these credits for the benefit of our transit, highway, and highway safety programs. This proposal is vital to the provision of a pro rata calculation of the credits so that we are not penalized for using Federal dollars in our transportation development projects. I support this amendment and ask that my colleagues join me as the Gentleman brings this proposal to the floor.

Furthermore, I support the proposal of Mr. Pitts that would provide a temporary transition period for transit entities, including three in Texas, that, under the most recent census, are now subject to the over 200,000 population prohibition on the use of transit formula dollars for operating expenses. The Pitts amendment would allow those small transit entities in this new situation to use up to 50 percent of their formula funds for operating expenses for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and up to 25 percent of the formula funds for operating expenses in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

In addition, I join my colleague from Texas, Mr. Barton in the initiative of his amendment to require studies and assessments of risks to human health or the environment to use sound and objective scientific practices.

Due to the short time allotment given to the floor debate on this measure, I was unable to engage the distinguished ranking member from Minnesota in a colloquy. I wanted to discuss two very specific and very significant issues that relate not only to Houston, but to Texas and many other States that have developing infrastructure and economic cores.

I would have asked the ranking member for his assistance in maintaining the issues that I underscore here as priorities as he and his fellow conferees move closer to finalizing negotiations on this measure. These issues speak to (1) the need for increased transit- related funding in future authorizing and appropriating measures, and (2) the need to maintain Federal oversight of the way in which States and localities regulate the flow of interstate traffic. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, METRO, is the agency charged with the public transportation and transit needs. METRO has worked over the past 2 years to create a long-range plan for mass transit in the Houston area. After having worked with the community to receive input, the METRO board of directors adopted a blue-print for its long-range plan called ``METRO Solutions.''

The METRO Solutions plan includes: (1) 50 percent increase in METRO's bus service, including approximately 44 new local, signature express, express, and Park & Ride bus routes, (2) nine new Transit Centers and nine new Park & Ride lots, as well as expansion and upgrading existing facilities, (3) expansion of the METRO Rail line and commuter line components, including an overall plan with 72.8 miles of rail, and (4) extension of the payments to local governments for street and other mobility improvements for five additional years, 2010-2014. Texas has a transportation code and it is authorized to act in this field of local government through METRO.

I believe that long-term and comprehensive projects such as that of Houston METRO should be given full Federal support? I would add that the authorization process should allow for innovative financing options to allow projects such as METRO's Advance Transit Plan, ATP, and METRO Solutions.

I would ask that the appropriators and authorizers remain open-minded in crafting measures such as H.R. 3 to the transit needs that exist in areas like Houston, the fourth largest city in the Nation. The distinguished majority leader has been cited as advocating the need for more innovative financing to build infrastructure and to foster economic activity.

Given the situation that Houston METRO and other similar entities face with administrative delays that stem from a very lengthy funding process, I ask that our colleagues follow

the leadership of the majority leader from Texas.

We should go to conference and continue to work with the committee to maintain the need for innovative financing for major transit infrastructure.

We should remain committed to maintaining the need for financing options for transit projects that promise to foster economic activity as a priority. Also, with respect to the issue of the need to maintain Federal oversight of the way in which States and localities regulate the flow of interstate traffic, a program called ``SAFE Clear'' has been initiated in the city of Houston and is in the city ordinance.

I congratulate the mayor and city council on the vigorous work that its Office of Mobility has done to improve transportation throughout the city of Houston and remain eager to collaborate with them to facilitate this endeavor from the Federal level.

However, I must make my colleagues aware that, through feedback that I have received from my constituents, the program has disproportionately affected certain groups of motorists, particularly those of lower socio-economic status and those who are or who primarily transport the elderly. While the proposed improvements to the ordinance that provide a ``free tow'' could serve our goals well, motorists who do not qualify for a ``free tow'' will possibly suffer from the disparate effects of the ordinance complained of by constituents.

I ask that the Transportation Conference ensure that provisions are included in this measure and measures in the future that maintain Federal oversight over the regulation of interstate travel. The potentially disparate overall effect of the ordinance merits further analysis, research, and oversight.

I hope we will continue to provide oversight over programs such as this through the legislation that is crafted in committee.

Mr. Chairman, for the foregoing reasons, I support the drafters of this legislation for their efforts to fund priority projects and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I further yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the regional transit authorities are important to transportation in rural areas. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) and the gentleman to determine whether we can help with the problems in South Carolina.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I echo the words of my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and, of course, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.

I would also like to not only thank my staff but everybody who has dealt with me for the past 4 years on this legislation. This is a very frustrating position to be in when the cash flow is not really what we wanted it to be and yet trying to achieve what is necessary for this country, and that is a good infrastructure system.

I am convinced that we will be revisiting this issue when this bill is on the President's desk in the years coming because we have a real challenge in this great Nation of ours. We have heard it time and again about how people are delayed and how product is delayed and how our bridges are crumbling, our roads are crumbling. These are not myths. These are actual facts. It was testified before us that we actually need probably $500 billion to make sure this country keeps moving, to be competitive with that competitive China.

So this is just a small step forward, and I will agree with my friend from Oregon; I do believe this will be the premier domestic legislation that we will pass that will affect more lives immediately than any other piece of legislation we will have before this body in the next 14 months.

I am proud of the fact that we have been able to do this in a bipartisan fashion. I am proud of the fact that we have been able to, in fact, craft this bill, and there has been lots of cooks in this kitchen, but we have managed to bring everybody together, and I think come out with a very, not think, I know, a very good product in TEA-LU.

Now, we are going to go to the Senate after I hope everybody votes for this legislation. We will go to the Senate. God willing, they will move something, and we will have this bill done before the first of June.

And for that I thank each Member of this House, for participating in the process and showing the public how this House can work together to produce a product for the benefit of this Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Pombo regarding H.R. 3.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2005.

Hon. Don Young, Chairman,

Committee on Transportation, and Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 3, the

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, as ordered

reported from the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure on March 2, 2005. I believe that the Committee

on Resources has a substantial jurisdictional interest in

many provisions of this important legislation including

streamlining of procedures under the National Environmental

Policy Act and resolving confusion on highway construction

and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Further, this Committee maintains jurisdictional interests

in provisions affecting recreational trails, highways on

federal public lands (including national parks, Indian lands

and public domain forest lands), the National Scenic Byways

Program, projects to benefit wildlife, highway safety as it

applies to Indian country.

Recognizing that this historic bill is scheduled to be

considered by the House of Representatives this week, and

noting the strong spirit of cooperation and coordination your

staff has shown mine in the development of this bill, I will

forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 3 to the

Committee on Resources. Waiving the Committee on Resources'

right to a referral in this case does not waive the

Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 3 or

similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that

you support my request to have the Committee on Resources

represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference

is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in

the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill.

Following your mark-up of H.R. 3, I want to acknowledge

your efforts on the bill's environmental provisions, many of

which touch upon Committee on Resources jurisdiction. I

commend your efforts to streamline the environmental review

process under the National Environmental Protection Act as

well as Section 4(f) procedures. However, I do have serious

concerns about the provision dealing with the pilot program

for mass transit in National Parks. This provision address

issues that lie squarely within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Resources and should be addressed in that

context. Moreover, the bill passed last year by the Senate,

S. 1075, contained a number of troubling provisions that I

feel should not be included in any version of transportation

legislation. These provisions include language relating to

the Endangered Species Act and programs to address invasive

species. Thank you for not including these provisions in your

bill.

I appreciate your leadership and cooperation on this bill

and I look forward to working with you to see that H.R. 3 is

enacted into law soon.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. I want to remind my fellow colleagues that this is a very well-crafted, bipartisan effort and this would disrupt what I would say is a great chariot that is going to go off on to the horizon and become law.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.