[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18776-18780]
[From the U.S. 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--
       (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;

[[Page 18777]]

       ``(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 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.

[[Page 18778]]

  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 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

[[Page 18779]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 18780]]

  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.

                          ____________________