[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6800-H6804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2006
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2832) to reauthorize and improve the program authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2832
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Appalachian Regional
Development Act Amendments of 2006''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AVAILABLE AMOUNTS; MAXIMUM COMMISSION
CONTRIBUTION.
(a) Grants and Other Assistance.--Section 14321(a) of title
40, United States Code, is amended--
[[Page H6801]]
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking clause (i) and
inserting the following:
``(i) the amount of the grant shall not exceed--
``(I) 50 percent of administrative expenses;
``(II) at the discretion of the Commission, if the grant is
to a local development district that has a charter or
authority that includes the economic development of a county
or a part of a county for which a distressed county
designation is in effect under section 14526, 75 percent of
administrative expenses; or
``(III) at the discretion of the Commission, if the grant
is to a local development district that has a charter or
authority that includes the economic development of a county
or a part of a county for which an at-risk county designation
is in effect under section 14526, 70 percent of
administrative expenses;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
of the cost of any activity eligible for financial assistance
under this section, not more than--
``(i) 50 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated
to carry out this subtitle;
``(ii) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this subtitle; or
``(iii) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this subtitle.''.
(b) Demonstration Health Projects.--Section 14502 of title
40, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Limitation on available amounts.--Grants under this
section for the operation (including initial operating
amounts and operating deficits, which include the cost of
attracting, training, and retaining qualified personnel) of a
demonstration health project, whether or not constructed with
amounts authorized by this section, may be made for up to--
``(A) 50 percent of the cost of that operation;
``(B) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent of the cost of that
operation; or
``(C) in the case of a project to be carried out for a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent of the cost of that
operation.''; and
(2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) At-risk counties.--The maximum Commission
contribution for a project to be carried out in a county for
which an at-risk county designation is in effect under
section 14526 may be increased to the lesser of--
``(A) 70 percent; or
``(B) the maximum Federal contribution percentage
authorized by this section.''.
(c) Assistance for Proposed Low- and Middle-Income Housing
Projects.--Section 14503 of title 40, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Limitation on available amounts.--A loan under
subsection (b) for the cost of planning and obtaining
financing (including the cost of preliminary surveys and
analyses of market needs, preliminary site engineering and
architectural fees, site options, application and mortgage
commitment fees, legal fees, and construction loan fees and
discounts) of a project described in that subsection may be
made for up to--
``(A) 50 percent of that cost;
``(B) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent of that cost; or
``(C) in the case of a project to be carried out for a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent of that cost.''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--A grant under this section for expenses
incidental to planning and obtaining financing for a project
under this section that the Secretary considers to be
unrecoverable from the proceeds of a permanent loan made to
finance the project shall--
``(A) not be made to an organization established for
profit; and
``(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), not exceed--
``(i) 50 percent of those expenses;
``(ii) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent of those expenses; or
``(iii) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent of those expenses.''.
(d) Telecommunications and Technology Initiative.--Section
14504 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by striking
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Limitation on Available Amounts.--Of the cost of any
activity eligible for a grant under this section, not more
than--
``(1) 50 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated
to carry out this section;
``(2) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this section; or
``(3) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this section.''.
(e) Entrepreneurship Initiative.--Section 14505 of title
40, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (c)
and inserting the following:
``(c) Limitation on Available Amounts.--Of the cost of any
activity eligible for a grant under this section, not more
than--
``(1) 50 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated
to carry out this section;
``(2) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this section; or
``(3) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this section.''.
(f) Regional Skills Partnerships.--Section 14506 of title
40, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (d)
and inserting the following:
``(d) Limitation on Available Amounts.--Of the cost of any
activity eligible for a grant under this section, not more
than--
``(1) 50 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated
to carry out this section;
``(2) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which a distressed county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 80 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this section; or
``(3) in the case of a project to be carried out in a
county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect
under section 14526, 70 percent may be provided from amounts
appropriated to carry out this section.''.
(g) Supplements to Federal Grant Programs.--Section
14507(g) of title 40, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) At-risk counties.--The maximum Commission
contribution for a project to be carried out in a county for
which an at-risk county designation is in effect under
section 14526 may be increased to 70 percent.''.
SEC. 3. DISTRESSED, AT-RISK, AND ECONOMICALLY STRONG
COUNTIES.
Section 14526(a)(1) of title 40, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) designate as `at-risk counties' those counties in the
Appalachian region that are most at risk of becoming
economically distressed; and''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 14703 of title 40, United States Code, is amended
by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--In addition to amounts made available
under section 14501, there are authorized to be appropriated
to the Appalachian Regional Commission to carry out this
subtitle--
``(1) $95,200,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(2) $98,600,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(3) $102,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(4) $105,700,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
``(5) $109,400,000 for fiscal year 2011.''.
SEC. 5. TERMINATION.
Section 14704 of title 40, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act take effect on October 1,
2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 2832 reauthorizes and improves the Appalachian
Regional Commission, the ARC. I want to point out very early on that
there are no earmarks in this legislation.
The ARC has been a successful program for the past 40 years and has
helped reduce the Appalachian region's poverty level, cut the infant
mortality rate, increased the percentage of adults with a high school
diploma, provided water and sewer services to a significant number of
households and businesses, and created new jobs.
S. 2832 is a simple 5-year reauthorization, increasing authorization
levels to adjust for inflation. The reauthorization also makes a minor
change to the economic status designations of ARC counties. Currently
ARC has four statutory designations which are determined by the
unemployment rate, per capita income and poverty rate of each ARC
county.
The bill creates an additional designation to assist counties that
are at
[[Page H6802]]
risk, yet don't fully qualify as distressed. Currently these counties
may only be funded up to 50 percent of project costs. At-risk counties
have fragile economies and have significant difficulty meeting the
current 50 percent match rate to participate in the program.
In many cases, at-risk counties were recently distressed and eligible
for an 80 percent Federal match. The addition of the ``at risk''
designation will further assist counties as they transition from
distressed to the transitional designation and fund projects in these
counties up to 70 percent of the project costs.
The ARC is viewed by most as a successful model for economic
development, and the ARC has done a great job encouraging local
economic development by making use of local resources for the benefit
of the community.
It was recently estimated that each dollar of ARC funding leveraged
$2.57 in other public funding and $8.46 in related private funding. The
ability to leverage a large amount of other public and private funding
makes ARC a very valuable tool for our communities.
The Appalachian Regional Commission is a vital tool for economic
development in Appalachia, and the program will end in 10 days unless
we pass S. 2832 today. I want to repeat, the program will end in 10
days unless we pass S. 2832 today. We must ensure continuation of the
successful program and further express our support of the hard-working
people in the Appalachian region.
I want to remind my fellow colleagues that there are no earmarks in
this reauthorization.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of S. 2832.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, it is with true regret that I
rise to urge my colleagues to oppose S. 2832, a bill to reauthorize the
Appalachian Regional Commission. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
bill not for what it does, but for what it does not do. S. 2832 does
not protect each ARC State funding allocation from the effects of
earmarking in this Chamber.
The House bill does contain such protection. H.R. 5812, which has
strong bipartisan support, contains language that provides each State
with protection against raiding its funding allocation for earmarked
projects. The House bill contains a provision that says, ``Funds
approved by the Commission for a project in an Appalachian State
pursuant to Congressional direction shall be derived from such State's
portion of the Commission's allocations of appropriated amounts among
the States.''
By requiring that funds for earmarked projects come from the State
allocation, this language protects all rank-and-file members in ARC
counties from an inequitable distribution of ARC funds.
The Senate bill contains no such provision. It is inconsistent with
earmark reform legislation and does nothing to stop the unbalanced
distribution of funds that is characteristic of earmarking. With its
very limited amount of program funds, it is essential that fund
allocations be done based on need, not on the whims of a few.
We are all aware of the phenomenal success of the Appalachian
Regional Commission. Since its creation in 1965, the ARC has worked to
transform the Appalachian region and bring it into the American
economic mainstream. The number of economically distressed counties has
been cut by more than half. The per capita income gap between
Appalachia and the U.S. has been reduced from 22 percent below the
national average in 1965 to 18 percent in 2001. Infant mortality rates
have fallen, and adults with high school diplomas have increased by
over 70 percent.
To ensure progress and ongoing success of this breakthrough ARC
program, it is essential that each State receive its fair share based
on the ARC formula. S. 2832 opens the door for tampering with this
successful formula, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to oppose S. 2832.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentleman, my good
friend from Tennessee, that if we oppose this legislation, in 10 days
this important legislation and important Commission will expire, so it
is imperative that we pass this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who has been a great leader on moving
forward this reauthorization bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for not
only his interest in this legislation, but his willingness to come to
my State and his support.
I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian
Regional Commission through 2011. My State of West Virginia is the only
State fully within the boundaries of the ARC, and I am proud of the
work that the Commission has accomplished in our State.
Since the last reauthorization, three counties in my congressional
district, and I have 18 counties, three of those counties, Lewis,
Upshur and Randolph, have been removed from the list of economically
distressed counties. That is good news. Putnam County, another one of
my counties, has jumped to the competitive category.
I am pleased that this legislation codifies ARC's at-risk designation
to protect counties like Lewis and Upshur that have fragile economies
and could be in danger of falling back into the distressed category.
This bill will permit the ARC to fund up to 70 percent of the cost of
projects in designated at-risk counties.
The chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Shuster, the ARC Federal cochair
Anne Pope, and I held a listening session earlier this month in
Randolph County to hear some of the ways that the ARC has helped spur
growth. We heard from several local elected officials, and we heard
from really a variety of different entities in the county on how the
ARC has helped spur development in Randolph County.
The director of the West Virginia Wood Technology Center spoke to us
about an ARC grant that helped workers learn the skills they need to
work in the timber industry, in the forest industry. We heard from a
teacher who received an entrepreneurship award to train high school
students and actually won an award for that and traveled to Washington
with her student to accept that award, and has since spurred that
student on to graduating from college and becoming an accountant.
We heard from the chairman of a rural public service district who is
expanding sewer service with ARC funds. And we heard from the director
of a regional planning council that assisted a seven-county region in
obtaining grant funds for economic development.
Job training, economic development, education benefits, housing and
helping to build a community infrastructure are just some of the
achievements of the ARC in this one county over the last several years.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when every West Virginia
county and every Appalachian county is strong enough economically that
the ARC is unnecessary. Until then, since 1965 until in 2011, until
then, however, ARC is a tremendous asset in improving communities
across the region.
I know that there is some disagreement regarding this legislation, we
heard about that, but the ARC and the programs it supports has broad
bipartisan support across Appalachia. The Senate passed this bill by
unanimous consent, and I hope my colleagues will pass the bill so that
it can be signed into law.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I love the Appalachian Regional Commission. I love what
it has accomplished. I have followed the work of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Jr., when he was designated by John F. Kennedy to travel throughout the
13 States of the Appalachian region and report back to him on his
findings and suggestions of what to do and how to rebuild the economies
of those 13 States.
Out of that came the Appalachian Regional Commission. I was staff
director on the Committee on Public Works then at the time and
participated in the drafting of the ARC bill, and separately the
writing of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. I
have one of the pens that Lyndon
[[Page H6803]]
Johnson used to sign the EDA bill into law.
Years later, when it became my opportunity to be a Member of Congress
and to chair the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, and the
Economic Development Subcommittee prior to that, it was at a time when
President Reagan had just been elected and submitted his budget to the
Congress, the Budget Reconciliation Act. It called for abolishing the
Appalachian Regional Commission and the Economic Development
Administration.
I said that is not right. We are not going to stand and let that
happen. The gentleman's predecessor, his father Bud Shuster, stood with
us as we stood up to the Reagan administration, to Budget Director
Stockman, and we traveled throughout the Appalachian region holding
hearings.
We heard such wonderful testimony as before the Appalachian Regional
Commission. The way up for people in this region was a bus ticket north
to Detroit and Chicago and Cleveland. But the economy for 100 years was
characterized by 80 acres and a mule.
We went to Duff, Tennessee, and heard from Tilda Kemplen, director of
a child development center, who said at the conclusion of her
testimony, ``Gentleman,'' and the gentleman there at the hearing were
myself and Mr. Clinger of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the
subcommittee, she said, ``Gentleman, when you go back to Washington and
look at the dollar, try to look over the top of the dollar, not to see
George Washington, but to see a child.''
And when we went into West Virginia, we stayed with the previous
speaker. The mayor of the little town at which we held our hearing took
us around the town to see what it had looked like and what it was
coming to be with the investments from ARC. And as I stood in the store
which the mayor owned and operated, behind the cash register on the
wall was a little sign that said, ``God never put nobody in a place too
small to grow.'' That is the spirit of Appalachia.
Over the years, those investments of the ARC have taken this region,
which was at 45 percent of per capita income, and boosted it up to 75
percent of national capita income. That is an extraordinary
accomplishment.
The Backbone Highway System that has opened the region up to trade
and growth and opportunity has been critical to the growth of this
region. But in 1982, the administration said, no, we don't want to
continue this program. But the Congress said yes. We reported a bill
from the Committee on Public Works, brought it to the House floor,
passed 382 to something. But the Senate wouldn't act on it; it was a
Republican majority in the Senate. They were working with the
administration, and they said no.
But because the House had spoken, the House Appropriations Committee,
they said the House has spoken on this, and we will appropriate the
funds and the authorization with it, and for 16 years that is the way
it went.
{time} 1730
In appropriations we would in every Congress pass the reauthorization
of ARC. The administration would oppose it, Reagan one and two and Bush
one, and the House would speak in the appropriations, and the
authorization would pass, until Chairman Shuster.
In 1998, we finally got an authorization bill through the House and
through the Senate by the same 380-plus margins. But what has happened
since then is the funding authorization numbers have not been matched
by the appropriation numbers. A phenomenon has occurred in the last 2
fiscal years, the Appropriations Committee substituting its judgment
for the judgment of the grassroots people in the Appalachian region.
This is a unique process by which people come to approval of
projects. It starts at the county level, starts with the regional
development commission, starts with the mayor, council. The business
people meet, decide what their needs are, make recommendations. It is
approved by the development district organization. It then goes to the
State and then goes to the Commission, and the Commission then approves
the projects and then the budget comes to the Congress.
Then the Appropriations Committee, in the last 2 years, has said, oh,
you know, forget about that; we have our own priorities and we are
going to designate money. But their designations dilute the funding for
the other States. There are three States. Ohio doubled its share, 113
percent increase of ARC funding; West Virginia, 31 percent increase;
North Carolina increase, 14 percent. What does that mean for the rest
of the States? That means Alabama is down 20 percent, Georgia is down
19.6, Kentucky is down a percent and a half; Maryland is down 20
percent. I will put these all in the Record at this point and not go
through every one of them because we are dealing with a closed circle.
To pay for these earmarks, most of the other 10 ARC States' formula
funds are cut by 20 percent: Alabama, -20.4 percent; Georgia, -19.6
percent; Kentucky, -1.5 percent; Maryland, -20.3 percent; Mississippi,
-21.1 percent; New York, -19.5 percent; Pennsylvania, -20.0 percent;
South Carolina, -20.5 percent; Tennessee, -20.5 percent; and Virginia,
-19.1 percent.
What does that mean to those who participate and believe in the
grassroots process, that government starts from the bottom up, not from
the top down? It means we disrespect your judgment. We are substituting
our judgment just because we, one or another person, happens to be in
an Appropriations Committee that can substitute its judgment for the
grassroots.
It has been discouraging. I have talked to the development districts,
and so when we fashioned our bill in the House, and in our committee,
to reauthorize ARC, page 10 of the bill that was introduced in July,
July 17, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania cosponsored, Chairman
Young cosponsored, I will not go through all the others, section 4,
subsection (b), allocation of funds: Funds approved by the Commission
for a project in an Appalachian State pursuant to congressional
direction shall be derived from such State's portion of the
Commission's allocation of appropriated amounts among the States.
That is the anti-earmarking. That respects the grassroots process.
That is the bill that we introduced but it was not reported from
committee. It should have been. We could have done this in July. We
could have had a bill pass through the House practically on unanimous
consent, or had a recorded vote that had been 400-plus to zero, but
instead we waited for the Senate to pass a bill. The Senate dropped
that language.
In the suspension process, we do not have an opportunity to offer to
reinstate the House language, to stand up for the House position. That
is why I come with a heavy heart to oppose this bill because it is the
wrong process, because it guts the House provision, because it takes
away the opportunity for all States to participate equally.
Now, the chairman of the subcommittee, I have to respectfully
disagree, the program is not going to run out in 10 days. The
Appropriations Committee has included in its appropriation a
continuation of the authorization, as we have done for 16 years, and
will continue the authorization through the appropriation process, but
it will not be as valuable as if we include the House language to stop
the raid on the other States within the Appalachian region.
We are not talking hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, as
we are in the transportation bill. We are talking $65 million for
fiscal year 2006 and $26 million in formula funds for the coming fiscal
year and $35 million total. So out of that $26 million in formula
funds, $9.3 million have been earmarked. That means other States get
proportionally less money than those who are fortunate to have someone
on the Appropriations Committee take care of them. That is not right.
What is this, a week ago this body passed an anti-earmarking bill as
rules for the House. We did even better. We are not saying list who
they are for. We are saying do not do it in this particular program.
That is what offends me. Process means respect for the system. Process
guarantees, or should, integrity.
I am saying we ought to restore integrity. We ought to send this bill
back to the Senate and have a real negotiation and do the right thing
for the rest of the Appalachian States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H6804]]
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Minnesota, I appreciate the fact that he loves
ARC, but more importantly to me, the gentleman's passion for ARC is
most impressive, especially noting that he does not hail from the
Appalachian region, which I do, and the people of the Appalachian
region that I hail from. Small towns like Hymen, Pennsylvania, and
Salisbury, and counties like Fayette and Huntington County, they have
seen the good works of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and we do
not want to lose that.
I am not so bold to try to explain to the gentleman the legislative
process. He knows far better than most in this Chamber that we have
been able to, in the Senate bill, get some significant provisions in
there that we wanted authorizing as an at-risk category, which is
extremely important to counties all throughout the Appalachian region,
increasing the authorization funding amounts in this bill.
So the gentleman knows those provisions are in there, and as I said
earlier, if we do not act in 10 days, this will sunset. This will
terminate. It will end and we may lose it forever, which I am not
willing to take that risk. I do not believe that the Senate is going to
pass that appropriations bill in 10 days, and as I said, as I read the
legislation, it will sunset. It will terminate.
I would encourage Members to look at that fact, and I am willing to
work with the gentleman to move forward, because I do understand your
concerns about earmarking. And I want to remind Members of this
Chamber, there are no earmarks in this reauthorization. This bill is
going to move forward and make sure that the ARC survives for another 5
years and can continue to do the great work that it has done in the 13
States in that region.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just add to the discussion that I do not think government will come
to a halt in 10 days. The House will pass a continuing resolution so
that we can get through October, come back after election on November
13, and take up these appropriation bills. The Appalachian Regional
Commission will continue.
Quite right, the gentleman has stood firmly against earmarking in the
authorization process, but it is in the appropriation. It is where the
money is delivered where the evil occurs, if you will, and in this
context, this is not a bill to be tinkering with with earmarks when
there is so clearly a grassroots process that is fair and equitable and
has input from the people whose lives and livelihoods are affected.
It goes all the way up through the top, and when it gets up here say,
oh, sorry, you do not count; your judgment is not of value. To take
nearly a third of the money, a limited amount of funds in the
appropriation process, and designate it for projects and thereby
diminish the amount the other States get, that is not right. It is just
simply not right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, I understand the gentleman's concern, and I would suggest
that we take care of this earmarking problem in the appropriations
process. I know that the Senate bill has language in their
appropriations bills that deal with this, and I think that is the
appropriate place to do it.
Again, I have great concern if we do not reauthorize this and get it
to the President's desk that we, in fact, could sunset and terminate
this program. That is something that I am not willing to take the risk
on.
Once again, I appreciate the gentleman's support for ARC, his passion
for ARC. I want to remind my colleagues that there are no earmarks in
this reauthorization bill and that I would encourage my colleagues to
vote to continue ARC, the Appalachian Regional Commission's positive
impact that it has had, extremely positive impact it has had on our
region of the country that needs it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today the House plans to take up the
reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Every one of
the southern West Virginia counties I represent is encompassed by the
Appalachian Regional Commission and ARC support is critical to our
communities' livelihood and well-being.
It is ARC's ability to serve its mission by adapting it actions to
fit the times that makes ARC such an invaluable resource to Appalachia
and the Nation. From the Appalachian Development Highway System to e-
commerce and broadband initiatives, ARC continues to serve its mission
by advocating and partnering with the people of Appalachia to create
opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and improved
quality of life.
For these reasons, among others, I will support the legislation
before us today to reauthorize ARC. However, I do so with reservations.
For most of the past 41 years of ARC existence, its program has been
free of congressional earmarks. Congress has appropriated funds to ARC
and ARC, through a formula based largely on need, has apportioned
Federal money to the States.
In fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, we have seen significant
earmarking of the ARC account. Indeed, my home State of West Virginia
has received a number of these earmarks.
Why is this? In most instances Members have not requested these funds
come from ARC formula funds. However, committee leadership has been
forced into this practice of feeding on our own. Why? Because the
priorities of Congress have shifted from Middle America to the Middle
East.
Our appropriators are faced with this dilemma because the $8 billion
per month spent in Iraq precludes us from investing in needed
infrastructure here at home. I've said many times that dollars for
Baghdad would be better spend in Beckley--Beckley, WV.
While one of the funded projects has benefited many southern West
Virginians directly by providing much needed water and wastewater
assistance, I believe it is important we refrain from earmarking the
very scarce resources allocated to ARC and, if earmarking the ARC
account continues, Congress should require that congressional earmarks
are derived from that State's formula allocation of ARC funds.
I believe adopting such a provision will benefit all ARC member
States and the long-term viability of ARC itself.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2832.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________