PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jul 12, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2006 - Limits the maximum Appalachian Regional Commission non-highway grant amount for designated at-risk counties to 70%.
Directs the Commission to designate as "at-risk counties" those counties in the Appalachian region that are most at risk of becoming economically distressed.
Authorizes additional appropriations to the Commission through FY2011 to carry out Appalachian regional development.
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).
People & committees
Sen. Voinovich, George V. [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 215 - 204 (Roll no. 470).
House roll call 470 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 215 - 204 (Roll no. 470).
House roll call 470 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6895-6896)
At the conclusion of debate, a recorded vote was 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 S. 2832.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6800-6805; text of measure as introduced: CR H6800-6801)
Mr. Shuster moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8208-8209; text as passed Senate: CR S8208-8209)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8208-8209; text as passed Senate: CR S8208-8209)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 513.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe without amendment. With written report No. 109-279.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe without amendment. With written report No. 109-279.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.2832 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 S.2832 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 S.2832 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 S.2832 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.