[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was, unfortunately, unavoidably detained
in my congressional district earlier today and therefore unable to vote
during rollcall votes Nos. 164 and 165. Had I been here, I would have
voted ``nay'' in both instances.
amendment offered by mr. boehner
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as
follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner: Strike section 212 and
redesignate section 213 as section 212.
Conform the table of contents accordingly.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman. My amendment removes section 212 which
creates a task force to study the characteristics of the ARC and
determine how best to duplicate these characteristics to address the
needs in the Mississippi Delta, the Ozarks, and along the Mexican
border.
Congress has already created several programs to do the type of
functions that these regional commissions would be charged with. Right
now, these areas are eligible for rural development and other types of
assistance programs through the USDA, Small Business Administration,
and HUD.
In addition, the States have similar programs to address the needs of
people who are in these regions. I believe Congress should act
carefully and examine what we have and work to improve those programs
before we start another regional development agency.
The ARC is inefficient and has not achieved its goals after more than
25 years. Its main objective, the highway system, is little more than
two-thirds completed and the ARC, as a whole, has cost more than $6
billion. Yet the region still faces the same problems it had when LBJ
created ARC.
Today, my office was offered assurances that the ARC will not be
expanding its scope and that the language in the bill has been
clarified to reflect this. If that is the case then let us go ahead and
remove the section of the bill since it is pointless.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to remove the task force
from this reauthorization.
Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that it appears that this
language is in this bill so we can create a study that can be
ballyhooed and be the basis for a dog and pony show to run around the
country so that we end up expanding this down the road.
{time} 1240
Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good time to say, no, we do not want to
expand this, we do not need a task force, and let us save the taxpayers
a few dollars in the process.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise obviously in opposition to this amendment by the
gentleman from Ohio. A little bit of history and not too distant
history. Yesterday in a move to eliminate the Appalachian Regional
Commission altogether, the complaint was that the Appalachian Regional
Commission has been successful; therefore, declare victory and abolish
it.
Mr. Chairman, my feeling, then, is if the Appalachian Regional
Commission has been successful, and I think it has been successful
although the job is yet to be finished, and if it has application that
could assist other areas, such as the Ozark region, such as the
Mississippi Delta region, such as the Southwestern United States where
there are bands of poverty that exist, compact regions of poverty, then
why would not we want to borrow from something that has already been
invested in and already proven successful?
Mr. Chairman, this is a study to be performed by a task force to be
completed within a year that simply analyzes where it has been
successful and where there might be other applications. It is not a
move to expand the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would seek to at the appropriate time introduce into
the Record a May 9, 1994, letter from Jesse L. White, Jr., the Federal
cochair of the Appalachian Regional Commission, in which he states that
``The primary mission of the task force is to evaluate the extent to
which the unique characteristics of the Appalachian Regional
Commission'' and I will skip some words, ``have improved the economic
health of our region's communities.
``In addition, it will attempt to determine to what extent the ARC
model could be applied to rural economic distress elsewhere. This study
is not motivated by an attempt to expand ARC's boundaries or
population. However, if the ARC model is determined to have played an
important role in the region's progress, as I believe it has,'' quoting
Chairman White ``other areas of the country with persistent rural
distress could learn from our lessons as they pursue their own
solutions to the problems they face.
``I hope this clarification will address any questions which may be
raised concerning our goals and objectives.''
Mr. Chairman, once again the Appalachian Regional Commission is a
unique creature. It has a Federal cochair appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate; it has a State cochair appointed and
placed into position by the 13 Governors. There is a board that are the
13 Governors of the Appalachian Regional Commission. It is a true
Federal-State partnership.
Mr. Chairman, the statistics I read yesterday from a recent report
show that the Appalachian Regional Commission is working, that per
capita income increased at a faster rate than similar counties, that
job creation increased at a faster rate, the ARC region is still behind
but it is gaining faster than similarly placed counties that are not
within the ARC region. For that reason I would think that in other
hard-hit areas, I would have to believe that there would be a desire to
look at what is working and to see the extent to which that might be
applied separately, through other regional commissions perhaps, which
might be applied there. It may be that the regional concept used by the
ARC does not work as well in other areas but perhaps there are some
things that can be borrowed from the ARC. That is what this is all
about.
Mr. Chairman, to argue yesterday that the ARC has been successful
and, therefore, ought to be retired, then I do not believe we can come
to the floor and vote today to say we do not want to even look at what
has been successful and to see if other regions which have not been so
blessed can benefit from it.
Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I would urge rejection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has those statistics at
hand and believes it has been so successful, will the gentleman explain
to us why we need to do an independent study that according to the bill
would cost up to $500,000 of taxpayer moneys to apply these principles
elsewhere? I do not understand.
Second, the Mississippi Delta Commission that has looked at the
Appalachian Regional Commission decided some time ago that it was in
their best interests to remain a private organization and not to be
involved in a Federal-State partnership. They do not want that
bureaucracy laid on top of them. Mr. Chairman, with those two
considerations of mine, I am trying to understand why this language is
in the bill.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear my statistics yesterday
were compelling, because I do believe they tell the story. However, the
statistics do not show automatically how we got there. They say that
something is working, that there is a process that is working where the
ARC has been in place. What is it that can be extrapolated from that?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WISE was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, what is it that can be extrapolated from that
to be applied to other regions?
It may be as the gentleman says that the Mississippi Delta chooses
not to. I think one reason that the Mississippi Delta Commission, and I
am not an expert on that but maybe the gentleman from Ohio is not
either, since neither one of us are from that region, but one reason
they may have gone that way is because at that time there was not going
to be obviously a very active Federal role given the reluctance of the
administration to get into any other expansion of any program. This was
under President Reagan, as I recall.
By the same token, I would like to show the gentleman from Ohio, and
I realize my map is kind of small, but if the gentleman can look at the
blocks of red on this map, it shows concentrated pockets of poverty by
county in our country, and this is the ARC region here, but it does
show that there are other regional groupings and that indeed poverty
largely seems to be grouped on a regional basis.
Mr. Chairman, I think that half a million dollars to look at what has
been done in the Appalachian Regional Commission, which seems by the
statistics to be showing good results, is not too much to spend to
bring to these other areas some application that may benefit them.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, my only point is that we have the General
Accounting Office, we have the statistics, we have the committee
members, and if we want to expand it, let us go ahead and propose to
expand it. Let us not waste $500,000 developing what I think is going
to be a road show trying to convince all of us that this is the right
way to do it. Let us stop all of that. We create task forces and study
commissions in every piece of legislation that we pass.
Mr. Chairman, at some point we ought to look up and say that we can
develop this on our own and we should not just use it to develop cover
to make these votes easier down the road.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a good point.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wise was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a good point on not
wanting to put together a road show and, in fact, on a bipartisan
basis, I believe there were some Members from the other side that
reined in to some extent what the purview of this study might be, and
that is why there is a finite amount of half a million dollars. That is
why there is a final time for reporting. That is why there is a
definite commission that is created.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose is not to create a road show, and I share
the gentleman's concern about that. The purpose is to take a hard look
at what the ARC has done, how it has been successful and to see whether
there are other applications.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of expanding the ARC boundaries, that is not
the purpose here. If that were the purpose and, indeed, in order for
the ARC to be expanded, we have to come back to Congress, anyhow.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I understand
the purpose, and the purpose appears to be to set the stage to create a
similar type of commission in the three other areas of the country that
the gentleman outlined. That is where my concerns are. If, in fact,
that is what the gentleman wants to do, why not bring that proposal to
the Congress and let us vote on it.
Mr. WISE. Because that is the purpose of a task force, to look at
what has been successful. It may be in other regions that there is
nothing that is applicable. I happen to think that there is in rural
poverty.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent $6 billion since 1965 on the Appalachian
Regional Commission. I would think we would want to see whether or not
there are some other areas so we do not constantly reinvent the wheel.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], particularly in the name of my chairman of the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], who wished to be here to oppose this particular
amendment but unfortunately is tied up at a hearing with the Secretary
of HUD.
Mr. Chairman, the reasons why this task force should be formed are
probably the reasons why we should do more introspection in this
institution as to how we spend money. This really is a performance
evaluation. It is a study of whether or not the Appalachian Regional
Commission is performing the objectives and goals it was originally set
up for, whether the principles are applicable in other areas of the
country, how successful or how effective or how efficient it has been
as a tool of the Government in working in specifically defined economic
areas of the country.
Mr. Chairman, I would think, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Economic Development has so eloquently said, if we are spending $6
billion over 25 years, it seems to me rather rational to spend 1/
12,000th of that to make an evaluation as whether or not it has been as
effective as it could be or how it could be changed or modified.
{time} 1250
And remember that when the recommendations come in, they will either
come in to expand, to contract, to replicate, and no action will be
taken on the study except with the input of the Members of this House
and the full Congress to determine what should be done.
If I had any recommendation, I support the study and oppose this
amendment, because I think it is really what reinventing government is
all about. Let us start seeing where we have made mistakes or what we
have done well, and when we find either, make the appropriate
corrections.
Why do we want to stick our heads in the ground and fail to study
something that is quite evident as a tool that can be used in the
future or beaten into a tool that no longer should be used in the
future? And the only way that one could come to that conclusion is the
type of study like this. I oppose the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio and ask my colleagues to support the study as
indicated in the bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, we have got GAO reports for 20 years that
have looked at the effectiveness and how the money has been spent for
the Appalachian Regional Commission, and those studies speak for
themselves.
It is very clear in the committee report, in the original bill, that
somewhat is changed in the bill before us, what the purpose of the
study is. The purpose of the study is to find out those unique
characteristics that allow this to be successful and to apply them in
other areas of the country.
I do not think that we need a study to determine what part of the
Appalachian Regional Commission works and those parts that do not work.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Reclaiming my time to answer that question, let me
call the gentleman's attention to the fact that more than half the
Members of this House were not here prior to 1990, so going back from
the beginning of the Appalachian Regional Commission, the 25 years of
their history, they are not aware of. If anything I have observed while
a Member of this House during the last 9 years is that although we try
very hard, we have a limited amount of time to understand all the
facets of this Government, and I would venture to say there are
probably less than 20 Members of this body that really understand to
any depth what the Appalachian Regional Commission has done.
If I further had to make an observation, I think it would behoove us
all to be better students on all of these fine points of government,
and the way to accomplish it is to have members of this task force,
Members of this Congress, so they go out and physically see what
happened.
I would invite the gentleman from Ohio to join me as I travel around
the country and hold hearings all over the United States to find out
the best practices of success in economic development. I think we can
save money. I think we can be efficient. And I think we can act in the
manner the American people wish us to act in representing their
interests to create jobs.
But instead, if we do not study and we do not evaluate, we end up
replicating the failures and fallacies of the past, and we never update
ourselves.
So I think this really is a policy that should emanate from the
conservative side of this House, the gentleman's own party. Let us get
a good evaluation and keep what is good, do away with what is bad, be
more efficient and more effective in the expenditure of the American
taxpayers' money to develop economic policy in this country.
Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, strong opposition, to this
amendment.
As we look around the room, I suppose I am one of the few that has
spoken coming from an area that will be greatly affected. I represent
the Mississippi Delta, the eastern half of Arkansas.
I think it is wise for us to look at getting the biggest bang for our
Federal buck and allowing us these studies; we are capable of looking
at what has been learned in the Appalachian Region Commission and how
it is applicable to the Mississippi Delta and the other impoverished
areas of this Nation.
I think it is critical for us to use that knowledge to see how it is
applicable. In order to set that foundation, we must have the
appropriate study.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and urge my colleagues
to vote against it.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2442, the
Economic Development Authorization Act of 1994, but in strong
opposition to the amendment from my colleague regarding the Appalachian
Regional Commission [ARC]. This bill calls for a task force to study
whether the Appalachian Regional Commission could utilize its unique
characteristics to also address the economic needs of other distressed
rural areas such as the Lower Mississippi Delta, the United States-
Mexico border area, and the Ozarks. By approving the gentleman's
amendment, we would cause great harm to these areas by denying them the
benefit of the ARC's experience in dealing with economic development
matters.
It has been stated by some that the ARC has done a lackluster job in
improving the well-being and livelihood of residents in the Appalachian
region. Well, that is not the case. In a study entitled ``The Economic
Effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission: An Empirical Assessment
of 27 Years of Regional Development Policy,'' researchers concluded
that when comparing Appalachian counties within the ARC to non-
Appalachian twin counties, the ARC counties grew significantly faster
in income, earnings, population, and per capita income. Even further,
the researchers concluded that the ARC programs helped these counties
perform better.
The area of the county that I represent--the United States-Mexico
border region--is one of the most severely distressed anywhere. Double-
digit unemployment rates, high poverty rates, and low per capital
incomes are among the mainstays of the border economies. I feel that
application of the ARC principles would be extremely beneficial in
dealing with the problems of the United States-Mexico border region.
Finally, this bill only authorizes a task force to study the
applicability of the ARC principles to other distressed areas. This
bill does not call for the expansion of the ARC as some may claim. It
only calls for a task force to study the ways the ARC's characteristics
could be applied in other distressed areas. Other distressed areas
could benefit from the ARC's unique characteristics, for example, the
Federal-State partnership. This is all this bill would seek to do. No
expansion of the ARC is called for. I feel that the ARC's approach to
dealing with problems on a regional basis could be beneficial for the
United States-Mexico border area.
So I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment for the reasons I
mentioned. It is a wrong approach to take and I urge my colleagues to
oppose it.
Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer a similar
amendment to that of Mr. Boehner today, but in the interest of time I'm
pleased to join with him in offering this amendment jointly.
The Appalachian Regional Commission is known by its initials--ARC.
ARC is short for archaic in this instance.
This program, created by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, is another relic of
the Great Society.
Despite the fact this program was created to empower this region to
support itself, through the workings of a strengthened free-enterprise
economy, it has turned into a kind of entitlement hand-out.
Over the years $6.4 billion has been spent on this program.
And it has shown a propensity for growth--what started out as a
program covering 360 counties in 11 States has grown to 399 counties in
13 States. I guess we cannot get this porker away from the trough.
Now I do not argue that these areas don't need help--but Mr. Chairman
the Federal Government already spends millions in this region through
nationwide programs like the highway trust fund, community development
block grants, and other grants. The ARC is an expensive, unnecessary
duplication.
Several groups have included elimination of the ARC as part of their
deficit reduction efforts, including the Concord coalition and Citizens
Against Government Waste. In addition, several articles have been
written about the ARC, and at this time I wish to state that I will by
unanimous consent place an article that appeared in the August 1993,
edition of the Reader's Digest in the Record immediately following my
statement.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the ARC will not be eliminated this year.
We had that vote last night, and I congratulate the supporters of the
program for a successful defense of the ARC. However, we can take the
important step today of ensuring that the ARC isn't expanded to include
areas nowhere near the Appalachian region.
H.R. 2442 includes the creation of a task force which will, among
other things, study whether or not the ARC format can work in areas
like the Ozarks or the Mexican-border region.
This is not the mission of the ARC, and I see no reason for sending
some Appalachian gravy down south, unless it is a thinly veiled attempt
at building political support for an outdated program.
My Friends who are managing the bill say it is not their intention to
expand the ARC, and I appreciate the small change that was made before
bringing the bill to the floor. However, if the sponsors do not wish to
expand the ARC, then I wish they would explain to the House why the
study is needed. If they are truly committed to limiting the expansion
of the ARC, then they will accept our amendment.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Boehner-Thomas amendment.
It is not a drastic reduction of funding; it is not a change or
reduction in mission. This amendment simply states, let us keep the
Appalachian Regional Commission in Appalachia, and it deserves support.
You Can't Kill a Good Giveaway--For Years Taxpayers Have Been Taken for
a Ride in Appalachia--On What Might be the ``Longest Gravy Train in
History''
(By Dale Van Atta)
On a spring day 29 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson
launched the Great Society from the ramshackle porch of Tom
Fletcher's three-room tar-paper shack near the mountain-
hollow town of Inez, Ky.
Johnson plopped himself down on a pile of two-by-fours and
spoke to the unemployed coal miner while scores of reporters
and cameramen looked on. Fletcher was a 38-year-old father of
eight with a second-grade education. His two oldest children
had dropped out of school, he told the President, and he
feared the others would as well.
``I want you to keep those kids in school,'' Johnson said
to Fletcher. The President later wrote: ``I knew he had to
have help, and I resolved to see that he got it.''
On March 9, 1965, Johnson signed the law creating the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). It was to enable the
region to ``support itself, through the workings of a
strengthened free-enterprise economy.''
Johnson's measure found enthusiastic support in Congress,
but some members voiced dissent, including Rep. H.R. Gross
(R., Iowa). Gross predicted it was the beginning of the
``longest gravy train in history.''
Today, Gross's words appear prophetic. The ARC has spent
$6.2 billion to help build highways, sewer lines, industrial
parks and tourist attractions, but these improvements have
not created significant, long-term employment, especially in
central Appalachia. Instead, most of the money has been
ladled out to the home states of politically powerful
Congressmen and other officials. Consider:
In West Virginia, home of long-time ARC supporter Sen.
Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), the ARC provided $26.3 million to
help build the spectacular New River Gorge Bridge near
Fayetteville. It is a wonder to behold--the world's longest
arch steel-span bridge and, at 876 feet above the river,
America's second highest. Skydivers love it, and General
Motors filmed a commercial featuring a truck being dropped
from the bridge on a bungee cord. But it has not created any
jobs for impoverished citizens of the coal counties farther
southwest.
In the home state of Rep. Tom Bevill (D., Ala.), chairman
of the subcommittee overseeing the ARC, the agency forked
over $17,498 to the Alabama Music Hall of Fame in Tuscumbia.
Taxpayer money contributed to a 10-by-20-foot portable
exhibit featuring a 12-foot-tall jukebox and makeshift
recording studio to promote the museum, which honors native
stars from Hank Williams to the Grateful Dead. The
Congressman proudly took a turn singing in the studio when it
toured Washington, D.C.
Parts of Mississippi's Marshall County are booming as
workers from Memphis, Tenn., make these areas home. Cayce,
one of the fastest-growing sections, is getting a new water
system and more than 70 fireplugs with $250,000 of ARC money.
Marshall County is not by any stretch of the imagination
part of Appalachia. But it is in the Congressional
district of Rep. Jamie Whitten (D., Miss), who was until
last year House Appropriations Committee chairman.
``The ARC has become purely a pork-barrel giveaway,'' notes
economist Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, a Washington
think tank. ``It is a classic example of why federal
government programs fail to foster economic growth.''
Logrolling. Stubborn poverty in the coal counties of four
states--eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, southern West
Virginia and southwestern Virginia--was the reason for the
ARC's creation. But from the start, Congressional boosters
invited other states to join them at the trough. ``We needed
every supporter we could get,'' admits an ARC architect, Paul
Crabtree.
Congressionally defined Appalachia originally consisted of
360 counties in 11 states from Alabama to Pennsylvania. But
political logrolling continues to swell the region, and today
399 counties in 13 states, with a population of 20.7 million,
are eligible for aid. Not a single county, however, has ever
been disconnected from the ARC spigot--not even Gwinnett and
Forsyth, suburbs of Atlanta whose per-capita earned incomes
in 1990 were $18,865 and $19,010, respectively--well above
the $6652 poverty level.
Headquartered in Washington, the ARC is a federal-state
partnership with a staff of 54 run by three chiefs: the
states' co-chairman, the federal co-chairman and the
executive director. The states' co-chairman represents the 13
state governors and has a 50-percent vote on which projects
are given federal funds. The other half goes to the federal
co-chairman. Technically, this is the most powerful person in
the 14-member ruling body, having veto power over any
project. In practice, however, chairmen have rarely vetoed a
project demanded by the governors.
Back in 1979, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
criticized the ARC for continuing to make investments and
approve ``projects in metropolitan and urban areas that had
already achieved a self-sustaining growth rate.'' But nothing
has changed. Consider Knoxville, Tenn., in the home state of
powerful Republican Howard Baker, the Senate Majority Leader
from 1981 to 1985. Knox County has a per-capita income
average of $14,810 and a minuscule 4.3-percent unemployment
rate. Yet it benefits from $9 million in ARC largess for
health, water and sewer projects. The ARC also gave $99,127
to the Knoxville College library and $374,000 to the
University of Tennessee library.
Another ARC favorite is Huntsville, Ala., whose aerospace
economy fuels a countywide per-capita income average of
$16,418 and an unemployment rate of five percent. This is no
poverty pocket. Nevertheless, the ARC recently forked over
$370,000 for a Huntsville research park, $500,000 for the
U.S. Space and Rocket Center tourist attraction and more than
$1 million for improvements near the Huntsville airport.
Kings of the Road: Since the ARC was started, two-thirds of
its funding has gone for roads. The original plan directed
the ARC to build 2,350 miles at a cost of $840 million. But
Congress added states to the original definition of
Appalachia and authorized another 675 miles of highways.
Seventy-three percent of all ARC roads authorized to date
have been built. The ARC now estimates that the 26-highway
system will cost nearly $9 billion and ``cannot be
completed until after the year 2060.''
And who gets these highways? ``The county-seat towns,''
observes historian Ron Eller of the University of Kentucky's
Appalachia Center. ``That's where the political power is
strongest. Communities in central Appalachia--the more rural,
the more impoverished--do not have the political clout.''
Ironically, seven of the ten counties that have received
the least ARC support are in the heart of central Appalachia.
Owsley County, Kentucky, for example, with a per-capita
income of $4513, is the nation's 12th poorest county. Yet it
has received only $473,500 of ARC money since 1965, an
average of $16,910 a year, and has not gotten a dime in ARC
highway aid.
Meanwhile, the conference committee chaired by Rep. Tom
Bevill, which sets the ARC's budget, has earmarked $80.2
million in ARC road funds for his state in the past three
years.
Dead-End Voc Ed: The ARC has disbursed $389 million to
build and equip 700 vocational facilities at 510 schools.
Unfortunately, little of it fosters economic development in
Appalachia.
In the 1970's ARC consultant Richard Powers warned that its
voc-ed programs lacked local ``job relevance.'' For example,
the Hazard (Ky.) vocational school has received $191,082 to
build a mock mine structure, where future coal miners can
crawl around in a cramped, dirty underground environment. A
similar structure, price tag $498,000, was built in Sumiton,
Ala., at the Bevill State Community College.
The trouble with such voc-ed training is that mechanization
and global competition have drastically reduced jobs in the
coal industry. ARC's own statistics show that while
production has increased from 1981 to 1991, the number of
miners has plummeted from 172,000 to 89,000.
The GAO has criticized the ARC-sponsored programs, which
train workers for jobs that do not exist in Appalachia, thus
forcing them to leave the region to find permanent
employment.
In the end, the voc-ed program is just another wildly
expensive port barrel. Thus, the Arch A. Moore vocational
center in Leroy, W. VA., got $232,000 for equipment at the
behest of its namesake, then the state's governor. The George
C. Wallace State Community College in Cullman County,
Alabama, snagged $960,000. Alabama's Gadsden State Community
College came in for $50,700; it then named its manufacturing-
technology center ``The Bevill Center'' for Rep. Tom Bevill.
The school receiving the biggest chunk of ARC dollars, more
than $4 million, is Itawamba Community College near Tupelo,
in Rep. Jamie Whitten's Mississippi district.
Sure Flops. A 1966 study by Robert Nathan Associates warned
the commission to stay away from tourism investments,
explaining that the recreation industry is typically one of
``low pay and a seasonal nature.'' But top ARC officials and
state governors love these projects. So, for example, the ARC
spent $877,000 to help develop a nine-hole public golf
course near Charleston, W.Va.
Other ARC grants to encourage tourism have included:
$2.9 million for an access road serving the Montage ski
resort in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The county was
forced to take over the resort when it faced a $9-million
debt in 1991.
$28,823 for a ``Limestone Cave Display'' that became part
of the Georgia Minerals Museum in Cartersville and $37,078
for preliminary design concepts for a ``Kentucky Coal Mining
Museum & Exhibition Mine,'' which was never developed.
$50,000 for the ``Jamie L. Whitten Historical Center,''
which opened last August outside Tupelo, honoring one of the
ARC's chief Congressional benefactors. Not many tourists have
gone out of their way to ogle the ``living memorial,'' which
consists mainly of exhibits about federal projects Whitten
has brought to his district.
Fourteen years ago, the GAO complained there was no
yardstick for ARC success, no objective way to determine if
the commission was even needed. ``There are no constraints to
prevent the Appalachian states from believing the program
will go on indefinitely,'' the GAO said.
Indeed, the ARC's most remarkable achievement is its self-
perpetuation. It was supposed to be terminated in 1971, but
political pressure by Senators Howard Baker, Jennings
Randolph, Robert Byrd and John C. Stennis caused President
Nixon to extend it until 1975. President Ford took less
persuasion to allow a four-year lease on life to 1979.
In a handwritten note on ARC's future, President Jimmy
Carter, a former states' co-chairman, wrote: ``In general, I
consider regional commissions to be a waste of time and
money.'' Still, in obeisance to the commission's powerful
Congressional patrons, he kept it going.
The ARC's most serious fight for its life came in 1981,
when President Ronald Reagan called for the abolition of
everything except its highway program. In response, the
commission's awesome bipartisan Congressional lobby--13
governors, 26 U.S. Senators and 60 members of the House of
Representatives--along with an army of private citizens
precipitated a massive letter-writing and phone-calling
campaign asking Reagan not to end the program.
For the next seven years the battle was joined. Reagan
would kill the commission, and Congress would resurrect it.
After Reagan, President Bush was a pushover for the ARC.
Immediately after his inauguration, the ARC took a renewed
interest in adult-literacy programs throughout Appalachia--a
pet project of Barbara Bush. The President's first budget
proposed $50 million for the ARC; Congress pushed that to
$190 million by 1992.
Now President Clinton continues the pork-barrel tradition.
Despite his promise to reduce government spending, Clinton's
new budget allocates $189 million to the ARC--a minuscule cut
of $1 million.
In Inez, Ky., Tom Fletcher will not be affected one way or
another. In the 29 years since Lyndon Johnson showed up on
Fletcher's front porch, the ARC has dispensed only $515,800
to Martin County.
Now 67, Fletcher still lives in the same shack. None of his
eight children ever got past the eighth grade. Unemployed for
most of his life, he survives on his Social Security checks.
Things haven't changed much for him, nor for millions of
others in Appalachia. ``The ARC is a moldy piece of Great
Society cheese,'' writes the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail.
It is time to abolish it. This country can no longer afford
its wornout, misdirected programs.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 239, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 166]
AYES--184
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klein
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meehan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sangmeister
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thurman
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--239
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Beilenson
Bentley
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Byrne
Callahan
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDade
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rogers
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--14
Becerra
Blackwell
Dingell
Flake
Grandy
Hoagland
McDermott
Parker
Ridge
Sharp
Towns
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
{time} 1316
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Becerra against.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________