[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26630-26632]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3246, REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND 
                 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 704 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 704

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3246) to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a 
     comprehensive regional approach to economic and 
     infrastructure development in the most severely economically 
     distressed regions in the Nation. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) One hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3246 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 704 provides for consideration of H.R. 
3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. 
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R. 3246. I want to 
thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Economic Development, Public 
Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, Ms. Norton, Chairman 
Oberstar, and the ranking members, for drafting this legislation to 
authorize three new economic development commissions.

[[Page 26631]]

  H.R. 3246 establishes the Northern Border, Southeast Crescent and 
Southwest Border Regional Commissions and reauthorizes the successful 
Delta and Northern Great Plains Regional Commissions. These five 
commissions will help bring economic development to regions of our 
country that desperately need it.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation creates a Northern Border 
Regional Commission that will bring much-needed job creation and 
economic development resources to the Northeast region. Maine, New 
Hampshire, Vermont and upstate New York will all benefit tremendously 
from the establishment of this commission because it will assess and 
address the very specific needs, assets and challenges of this region.
  Over the last several decades, upstate New York, including my 
congressional district, has experienced a consistent pattern of 
economic distress resulting from substantial loss in the manufacturing 
sector, coupled with an aging infrastructure and lack of opportunities 
for a skilled workforce. My district alone has seen a staggering loss 
of more than 14,000 manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2005. This has been 
devastating to our local communities; however, this loss isn't an 
anomaly. It is extremely characteristic of several States in the 
Northeast. A targeted regional approach like this one created by this 
bill can help bring economic vitality to this region.
  The three new commissions are modeled after the highly successful 
Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC. The commission similar to the ARC 
will create Federal-State partnerships where local development 
districts and other nonprofits bring project ideas and priorities from 
the local level to the commissions to promote economic development.
  Specifically, the Northern Border Regional Commission will be charged 
with investing $40 million per year, rising to $60 million per year by 
2012, in Federal grants focused on local transportation and 
infrastructure projects, broadband development, alternative energy 
projects, agricultural development, and health care facilities. With 
regional planning, technical assistance, and funding of projects aimed 
at encouraging economic prosperity, this Commission will help local 
communities work together to support common developmental goals.
  Simply put, the numbers speak for themselves. Since its creation, the 
ARC has reduced the number of distressed counties in its region from 
219 to 100, cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent, and has 
helped 1,400 businesses create 26,000 new jobs. In fiscal year 2005, 
each dollar of the ARC funding leveraged $2.57 in other public funding 
and $8.46 in private funding.
  Speaking from personal experience, six counties in my upstate New 
York district have experienced similar success being a part of the ARC. 
The Village of Sherburne in Chenango County is a great example of how 
small ARC grants are extremely helpful in leveraging funds from State, 
local and private sources for economic development initiatives that 
create jobs. A $200,000 ARC grant to improve aging water infrastructure 
in Sherburne, New York, a problem that is plaguing many States in the 
Northeast, was able to leverage close to $4 million in State and local 
community investment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Northern Border Regional Commission will not only 
extend benefits to economically distressed counties in Maine, New 
Hampshire and Vermont; it will give upstate New York counties like 
Oneida, Herkimer, Cayuga and Seneca the opportunity to enjoy the same 
benefits their neighboring counties in the southern tier enjoy under 
the ARC.
  We need to ensure that every American has access to job training, 
employment-related education and high-tech infrastructure so that we 
can retain and grow our global competitive edge. I am confident that 
the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act will help us 
achieve that end.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the Regional 
Economic and Infrastructure Development Act, which would authorize 
$1.25 billion to create three new regional commissions and replace 2 
other regional commissions. These 5 regional commissions would be 
Federal-State partnerships that would provide grants to State and local 
governments to promote infrastructure and economic development.
  While I believe that comprehensive, regional approaches to addressing 
infrastructure and economic development needs often can be beneficial, 
I am not convinced that creating five commissions and the layers of 
bureaucracy associated with them is necessary to provide grants to 
communities most in need.
  The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act was 
originally considered by the House on September 17 under suspension of 
the rules, which limits debate, bars amendments and requires a two-
thirds vote for passage. Bills typically considered under suspension of 
the rules are bills and resolutions to name post offices and Federal 
buildings, congratulate sports teams and to raise general awareness of 
other issues.
  Generally, bills authorizing $1 billion in government expansion are 
not considered under a process with limited time for debate and no 
opportunity for amendment, but that is what the Democrat majority chose 
to do with the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act 
last month.
  Because of concerns either with the underlying bill or with the way 
in which this bill was originally considered, it failed to garner a 
two-thirds vote and did not pass under suspension of the rules. This 
closed rule does provide for more time to debate the merits of the 
underlying bill, but, unfortunately, it also shuts Members out from 
offering amendments to make this perhaps a better bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New 
York if he has any other speakers, and if not, I am prepared to yield 
back if he is.
  Mr. ARCURI. We have no additional speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans believe that every earmark should be 
debatable on the House floor. Republican Leader Boehner has introduced 
a proposal to improve the House rules and allow the House to debate 
openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in 
all bills.
  To date, 196 Republicans have signed a discharge position to bring 
this measure to the House floor for a vote. Unfortunately, we are still 
22 Members shy of what is needed. Therefore, I not only would encourage 
all Members of the House to sign the discharge position, but I will 
also be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that I can amend the rule to the House to allow the House to 
immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican 
Leader Boehner.
  It is vital that the House of Representatives act today and pass 
House Resolution 479 so that we can show American taxpayers we are 
serious when it comes to earmark transparency.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
previous question, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the 
Rules

[[Page 26632]]

Committee, Mr. Hastings. But I must say that I am a bit confused as to 
what earmarks and what the statements that he just made have to do with 
this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be more than happy to tell you. We 
think that the intent on both sides of the aisle was to have all 
earmarks have a transparency to them so we know where those earmarks 
come from. Under this rule, we are self-executing an amendment, and 
that amendment is not covered, is not covered under the transparency. 
Now, I don't know if there is something within that bill that has 
earmarks that aren't being reported, but Leader Boehner's resolution 
simply would make this subject to transparency. That is all we are 
saying. That is all that we are saying.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding on this point.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman. With all due respect, I couldn't 
disagree more. While some of my colleagues on the other side continue 
to criticize our new earmark rule, the fact of the matter is that the 
House Democratic majority has implemented the most honest and open 
earmark rule in the history of the United States House of 
Representatives. But don't take my word for it. In this week's CQ 
Weekly, Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense is 
quoted as saying: ``The House has given us more information than we 
have ever had before on earmarks, and they deserve credit for that.''
  Mr. Speaker, the other side continues to talk about their plan to 
modify the earmark rule, but what they don't tell you is that their 
earmark rule would not cover any measure not already covered by the 
earmark rule presently in effect. It is important to remember which 
side actually abused the earmark process, and who actually stepped up 
to the plate to reform the system and provide transparency. We didn't 
wait until 2 months before the election; we responded to the people's 
call for more openness on the first day of this Congress.
  It seems quite clear to me that the minority is more concerned with 
obstructionism, while we are focused on actually meeting the needs of 
our constituents. That is exactly what this bill does and what the 
underlying rule does.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and 
I appreciate that he has a little bit different view than I have. I 
would ask the gentleman, what bills are covered by the earmark rule, 
transparency rule, that you are talking about today? What bills?
  Mr. ARCURI. This bill today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The rules only cover appropriation bills.
  Mr. ARCURI. If I may reclaim my time, the bill today is covered by 
it. As I say, this bill is about helping Americans. This is about 
putting Americans back to work and about putting money back into the 
development of infrastructure, into financing hospitals, and doing the 
kind of things that I was sent to Congress to do today.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, passage of this bipartisan 
legislation, which this rule provides consideration of, is a critical 
step toward helping some of our neediest communities achieve economic 
parity with the rest of the country. The Regional Economic and 
Infrastructure Development Act authorizes the creation of five regional 
economic development commissions under a common framework of 
administration and management. These commissions are designed to 
address problems of systematic underdevelopment in their respective 
regions.
  In general, the five commissions authorized in this bill will utilize 
the successful Appalachian Regional Commission model, which facilitates 
a bottom-up approach. Local development districts, nonprofit 
organizations, and others bring projects and ideas to the commission 
from the local level, ensuring that the actions of the commission 
reflect local and regional economic development needs and goals.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a short while ago, the Northern Border 
Regional Commission created by this legislation builds on the success 
of the ARC. It would be charged with investing $40 million each year in 
Federal resources for economic development and job creation in the most 
economically distressed border areas of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, 
and Vermont. This commission will help fund projects that both 
strengthen traditional sectors in the region's economy and help to 
diversify it. The Northern Border Regional Commission is focused on 
helping areas in the Northeast that have higher levels of unemployment, 
a significant loss of population, and significantly low household 
incomes.
  This legislation is yet another example of true bipartisan 
cooperation often seen on the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.
  The material referred to previously by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 704 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) One hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________