PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 273.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 16, 2007
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Limits the maximum Appalachian Regional Commission contribution through non-highway grants and loans for designated at-risk counties to 70% of costs.
(Sec. 3) Authorizes the Commission to provide technical assistance, make grants, or otherwise provide amounts to and contract with persons or entities in the Appalachian region for projects to: (1) promote energy efficiency to enhance economic competitiveness; (2) increase the use of renewable energy resources to produce alternative transportation fuels, electricity, and heat; and (3) support the development of conventional energy resources to produce alternative transportation fuels, electricity, and heat.
(Sec. 4) Directs the Commission to designate as "at-risk counties" those counties in the Appalachian region that are most at risk of becoming economically distressed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes additional appropriations to the Commission through FY2011 to carry out Appalachian regional development and its economic and energy development initiative under section 3. Requires that funds approved by the Commission for a project in a state in the Appalachian region pursuant to congressional direction be derived from such state's portion of the Commission's allocation of appropriated amounts among the states.
(Sec. 6) Extends, for five years, the termination date of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (with exceptions for the Appalachian development highway system and certain definitions).
(Sec. 7) Includes within the Appalachian region the following areas: (1) Metcalfe, Nicholas, and Robertson counties in Kentucky; (2) Ashtabula, Fayette, Mahoning, and Trumbull counties in Ohio; (3) Giles, Lawrence, Lewis, and Lincoln counties in Tennessee; and (4) Henry and Patrick counties in Virginia.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 273.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 332 - 70 (Roll no. 632). (text: CR H7814-7815)
House roll call 632 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 332 - 70 (Roll no. 632).(text: CR H7814-7815)
House roll call 632 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7820-7821)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 799.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7814-7818)
Ms. Johnson, E. B. moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 12.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-33.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-33.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E264-265)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.799 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.799 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.799 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.799 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.