[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.

                          ____________________