Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments Of 2006

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 20, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

* [Begin Insert]

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.

* [End Insert]

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/