Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia has offered a motion to recommit H.R. 2740 the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, to the Judiciary Committee and to amend the legislation with regard to intelligence activities. I will support this motion, but with two important qualifications.

The motion to recommit would amend H.R. 2740 with a rule of construction, stating, ``nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect intelligence activities that are otherwise permissible prior to the enactment of this Act.'' This amendment does not at all modify the force of my legislation, does not limit the scope of the MEJA jurisdiction, and does not grant immunity to anyone, including contractor employees of the intelligence community. Put simply, I am voting in support of this motion because it in no way alters the underlying bill before us.

With that said, let me attach two qualifications to my support. First, the amendment is

unnecessary in the context of both current law and this legislation. Second, the amendment raises serious questions about the activities its proponents may be seeking to protect.

My legislation would indeed place contractor employees of non-defense related agencies under the extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States federal law, granting the Department of Justice authority to prosecute felony offenses committed by non-defense contractors. Defense contractors are already covered by MEJA, a point that seems lost on the authors of this motion. Given that the majority of the intelligence community falls under the Department of Defense, it stands to reason that many--if not most--contractors engaged in intelligence-related activities are already under the jurisdiction of federal law. Not only that, employees of the Defense Department intelligence agencies, including agents of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and intelligence services of the different branches of the Armed Forces, among others, are covered by MEJA, and this coverage has not endangered our national security in the least. So concerns about my legislation, which deals with non-defense contractors, seem ill-founded in the context of current law.

To my knowledge, there have never been significant concerns raised about the coverage of these Defense Department intelligence agents and contractors, for one major reason: prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Justice always has the discretion to refrain from prosecuting a case if it will endanger our national security interests. My legislation does not compel prosecution and it does not interfere with the prosecutor's discretion. If a prosecutor ever has concerns that prosecution of a contractor under MEJA would endanger state secrets, expose clandestine networks, or otherwise undermine our security interests, the prosecutor has the discretion not to prosecute the case. It's as simple as that.

Let me also point out that this bill only affects contractors who commit felony crimes. So long as private contractors, including those who are engaged in intelligence-related activities, are conducting themselves within the bounds of the law, this legislation is irrelevant to them. However, if there are private, for-profit contractors tasked with duties that require them to commit felony offenses, Congress needs to know about it. Such a revelation would point to a need for a serious debate about whether we are using contractors appropriately.

My second qualification is that this amendment raises serious questions about the activities it may be intended to protect. The question here is, given that my bill only targets activities that are unlawful, why do my colleagues feel the need to clarify that it does not affect activities that are permissible? What activities are contractors carrying out that are permissible but not lawful?

I have great apprehension about what might be meant in this context, but first let me state clearly: the law is the highest authority in the land, other than the constitution. The law trumps executive orders, memorandums, and policies in all cases. I am voting for this motion with the understanding that there is no activity a contractor might be performing that could ever be permissible but not lawful. The activities that we assign to private contractors must be in accordance with the law on the books. Therefore, I interpret this motion simply to mean that nothing in my bill will have any effect on contractors working on lawful, permissible, appropriate intelligence activities.

I raise this concern because, as my colleagues well know, Congress-- including members on both sides of the aisle--and this Administration have been at significant odds about the activities appropriate for our military and intelligence community to perform in certain contexts relating to the war in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism, especially with regard to the treatment of suspects in interrogations and detentions. There is rampant evidence that this Administration believes certain activities to be ``permissible'' which are clearly illegal under several statutes in United States Code.

Just today, for example, the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice has issued secret memorandums that, in direct contrast to the policies they have publicly avowed, amounted to ``an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency'' and ``for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.'' I submit the full article for inclusion in the Record.

The harshest forms of physical and psychological tactics outlined in this article are inappropriate and illegal for our military personnel and intelligence agents, to say nothing of private contractors, and it is abominable that this Administration continues to work to circumvent our time-honored values and laws to authorize behavior that is un- American to its core.

There are clear laws on the books prohibiting torture, including the War Crimes Act (18 U.S. Code 2441) and the federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S. Code 2340). Moreover, torture is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (articles 77-134). And the United States is a ratified signatory to international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3) and the Convention Against Torture, which specifically outlaw torture. Most importantly, the United States Constitution (amendments 5, 8, and 14) explicitly prohibits cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment.

The kinds of activities that, to the great shame of our nation, have been carried out at Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay detention facilities are not, in any circumstances, permissible. Let us be clear that, in the passage of this motion, we are in no way authorizing or legitimating these behaviors. Let us also be clear that, in this passage of this legislation, we are providing federal prosecutors the tools to arrest and prosecute any contractor working for this government who commits such abominable acts to the full extent of the law.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2007]

Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

(By Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen)

Washington, Oct. 3.--When the Justice Department publicly

declared torture ``abhorrent'' in a legal opinion in December

2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its

assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order

brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales's arrival as attorney

general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued

another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different

document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive

endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever

used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time

provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects

with a combination of painful physical and psychological

tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and

frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on ``combined

effects'' over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy

attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising

clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed

as the opinion's overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told

colleagues at the department that they would all be

``ashamed'' when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing

``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment, the Justice

Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers

did not know existed, current and former officials said. The

Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A.

interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a

hidden legacy of President Bush's second term and Mr.

Gonzales's tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved

quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004

rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on

surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly

in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and

the administration has responded as a policy matter by

dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice

Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal

conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent

memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House

has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal

latitude for harsh tactics.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that

he would not comment on any legal opinion related to

interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, ``We have gone to great

lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive

order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and

our practices fall within U.S. law'' and international

agreements.

More than two dozen current and former officials involved

in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three

months about the opinions and the deliberations on

interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the

condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the

documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern.

When he stepped down as attorney general in September after

widespread criticism of the firing of federal prosecutors and

withering attacks on his credibility, Mr. Gonzales talked

proudly in a farewell speech of how his department was ``a

place of inspiration'' that had balanced the necessary

flexibility to conduct the war on terrorism with the need to

uphold the law.

Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales

seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and

David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel, to endorse policies

that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even

though the practices brought the condemnation of other

governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress.

Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the

Bush

White House, undermining the department's independence.

The interrogation opinions were signed by Steven G.

Bradbury, who since 2005 has headed the elite Office of Legal

Counsel at the Justice Department. He has become a frequent

public defender of the National Security Agency's domestic

surveillance program and detention policies at Congressional

hearings and press briefings, a role that some legal scholars

say is at odds with the office's tradition of avoiding

political advocacy.

Mr. Bradbury defended the work of his office as the

government's most authoritative interpreter of the law. ``In

my experience, the White House has not told me how an opinion

should come out,'' he said in an interview. ``The White House

has accepted and respected our opinions, even when they

didn't like the advice being given.''

The debate over how terrorism suspects should be held and

questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks,

when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and

coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had

previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted

the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote,

choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of

a handful of appointees.

The policies set off bruising internal battles, pitting

administration moderates against hard-liners, military

lawyers against Pentagon chiefs and, most surprising, a

handful of conservative lawyers at the Justice Department

against the White House in the stunning mutiny of 2004. But

under Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Bradbury, the Justice

Department was wrenched back into line with the White

House.

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva

Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda,

President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.'s

secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantanamo

Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or

pouring water over a bound prisoner's cloth-covered face to

induce fear of suffocation.

But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the

administration, President Bush signed a new executive order

authorizing the use of what the administration calls

``enhanced'' interrogation techniques--the details remain

secret--and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding

prisoners in ``black sites'' overseas. The executive order

was reviewed and approved by Mr. Bradbury and the Office of

Legal Counsel.

Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed that office under President

Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush and wrote a

book about it, said he believed the intense pressures of the

campaign against terrorism have warped the office's proper

role.

``The office was designed to insulate against any need to

be an advocate,'' said Mr. Kmiec, now a conservative scholar

at Pepperdine University law school. But at times in recent

years, Mr. Kmiec said, the office, headed by William H.

Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia before they served on the

Supreme Court, ``lost its ability to say no.'' ``The approach

changed dramatically with opinions on the war on terror,''

Mr. Kmiec said. ``The office became an advocate for the

president's policies.''

From the secret sites in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern

Europe where C.I.A. teams held Qaeda terrorists, questions

for the lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters arrived daily. Nervous

interrogators wanted to know: Are we breaking the laws

against torture? The Bush administration had entered

uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding

prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross

and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They

included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid

cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by

thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress

positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such

tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would

later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial

intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and

other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or

more effective.

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A.

had constructed its program in a few harried months by

consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and

copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training

American service men to withstand capture. The agency

officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from

lawyers thousands of miles away.

``We were getting asked about combinations--`Can we do this

and this at the same time?' '' recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a

veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at

the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.

Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques

had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that

they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He

recalled agency officers asking: ``These approved techniques,

say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature--can they be

combined?'' Or ``Do I have to do the less extreme before the

more extreme?''

The questions came more frequently, Mr. Kelbaugh said, as

word spread about a C.I.A. inspector general inquiry

unrelated to the war on terrorism. Some veteran C.I.A.

officers came under scrutiny because they were advisers to

Peruvian officers who in early 2001 shot down a missionary

flight they had mistaken for a drug-running aircraft. The

Americans were not charged with crimes, but they endured

three years of investigation, saw their careers derailed and

ran up big legal bills.

That experience shook the Qaeda interrogation team, Mr.

Kelbaugh said. ``You think you're making a difference and

maybe saving 3,000 American lives from the next attack. And

someone tells you, `Well, that guidance was a little vague,

and the inspector general wants to talk to you,' '' he

recalled. ``We couldn't tell them, `Do the best you can,'

because the people who did the best they could in Peru were

looking at a grand jury.'' Mr. Kelbaugh said the questions

were sometimes close calls that required consultation with

the Justice Department. But in August 2002, the department

provided a sweeping legal justification for even the harshest

tactics.

That opinion, which would become infamous as ``the torture

memo'' after it was leaked, was written largely by John Yoo,

a young Berkeley law professor serving in the Office of Legal

Counsel. His broad views of presidential power were shared by

Mr. Addington, the vice president's adviser. Their close

alliance provoked John Ashcroft, then the attorney general,

to refer privately to Mr. Yoo as Dr. Yes for his seeming

eagerness to give the White House whatever legal

justifications it desired, a Justice Department official

recalled.

Mr. Yoo's memorandum said no interrogation practices were

illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure

or ``even death.'' A second memo produced at the same time

spelled out the approved practices and how often or how long

they could be used. Despite that guidance, in March 2003,

when the C.I.A. caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief

planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, interrogators were again

haunted by uncertainty. Former intelligence officials, for

the first time, disclosed that a variety of tough

interrogation tactics were used about 100 times over two

weeks on Mr. Mohammed. Agency officials then ordered a halt,

fearing the combined assault might have amounted to illegal

torture. A C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, declined to

discuss the handling of Mr. Mohammed. Mr. Little said the

program ``has been conducted lawfully, with great care and

close review'' and ``has helped our country disrupt terrorist

plots and save innocent lives.''

``The agency has always sought a clear legal framework,

conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and

protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless

terrorists,'' Mr. Little added.

Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed's

statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former

senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.'s initial

interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed's background

or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert

to the secret prison. The former official said many C.I.A.

professionals now believe patient, repeated questioning by

well-informed experts is more effective than harsh physical

pressure.

Other intelligence officers, including Mr. Kelbaugh, insist

that the harsh treatment produced invaluable insights into Al

Qaeda's structure and plans. ``We leaned in pretty hard on

K.S.M.,'' Mr. Kelbaugh said, referring to Mr. Mohammed. ``We

were getting good information, and then they were told:

``Slow it down. It may not be correct. Wait for some legal

clarification.''

The doubts at the C.I.A. proved prophetic. In late 2003,

after Mr. Yoo left the Justice Department, the new head of

the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, began reviewing

his work, which he found deeply flawed. Mr. Goldsmith

infuriated White House officials, first by rejecting part of

the National Security Agency's surveillance program,

prompting the threat of mass resignations by top Justice

Department officials, including Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Comey,

and a showdown at the attorney general's hospital bedside.

Then, in June 2004, Mr. Goldsmith formally withdrew the

August 2002 Yoo memorandum on interrogation, which he found

overreaching and poorly reasoned. Mr. Goldsmith left the

Justice Department soon afterward. He first spoke at length

about his dissenting views to The New York Times last month,

and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on

Tuesday.

Six months later, the Justice Department quietly posted on

its Web site a new legal opinion that appeared to end any

flirtation with torture, starting with its clarionlike

opening: ``Torture is abhorrent both to American law and

values and to international norms.''

A single footnote--added to reassure the C.I.A.--suggested

that the Justice Department was not declaring the agency's

previous actions illegal. But the opinion was unmistakably a

retreat. Some White House officials had opposed publicizing

the document, but acquiesced to Justice Department officials

who argued that doing so would help clear the way for Mr.

Gonzales's confirmation as attorney general.

If President Bush wanted to make sure the Justice

Department did not rebel again, Mr. Gonzales was the ideal

choice. As White House counsel, he had been a fierce

protector of the president's prerogatives. Deeply loyal to

Mr. Bush for championing his career from their days in Texas,

Mr. Gonzales would sometimes tell colleagues that he had just

one regret about becoming attorney general: He did not see

nearly as much of the president as he had in his previous

post.

Among his first tasks at the Justice Department was to find

a trusted chief for the Office of Legal Counsel. First he

informed Daniel Levin, the acting head who had backed Mr.

Goldsmith's dissents and signed the new opinion renouncing

torture, that he would not get the job. He encouraged Mr.

Levin to take a position at the National Security Council, in

effect sidelining him.

Mr. Bradbury soon emerged as the presumed favorite. But

White House officials, still smarting from Mr. Goldsmith's

rebuffs, chose to delay his nomination. Harriet E. Miers, the

new White House counsel, ``decided to watch Bradbury for a

month or two. He was sort of on trial,'' one Justice

Department official recalled.

Mr. Bradbury's biography had a Horatio Alger element that

appealed to a succession of bosses, including Justice

Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and Mr. Gonzales, the

son of poor immigrants. Mr. Bradbury's father had died when

he was an infant, and his mother took in laundry to support

her children. The first in his family to go to college, he

attended Stanford and the University of Michigan Law School.

He joined the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he came

under the tutelage of Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater

independent prosecutor.

Mr. Bradbury belonged to the same circle as his

predecessors: young, conservative lawyers with sterling

credentials, often with clerkships for prominent conservative

judges and ties to the Federalist Society, a powerhouse of

the legal right. Mr. Yoo, in fact, had proposed his old

friend Mr. Goldsmith for the Office of Legal Counsel job; Mr.

Goldsmith had hired Mr. Bradbury as his top deputy.

``We all grew up together,'' said Viet D. Dinh, an

assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and very much a

member of the club. ``You start with a small universe of

Supreme Court clerks, and you narrow it down from there.''

But what might have been subtle differences in quieter

times now cleaved them into warring camps.

Justice Department colleagues say Mr. Gonzales was soon

meeting frequently with Mr. Bradbury on national security

issues, a White House priority. Admirers describe Mr.

Bradbury as low-key but highly skilled, a conciliator who

brought from 10 years of corporate practice a more pragmatic

approach to the job than Mr. Yoo and Mr. Goldsmith, both from

the academic world.

``As a practicing lawyer, you know how to address real

problems,'' said Noel J. Francisco, who worked at the Justice

Department from 2003 to 2005. ``At O.L.C., you're not writing

law review articles and you're not theorizing. You're giving

a client practical advice on a real problem.''

As he had at the White House, Mr. Gonzales usually said

little in meetings with other officials, often deferring to

the hard-driving Mr. Addington. Mr. Bradbury also often

appeared in accord with the vice president's lawyer.

Mr. Bradbury appeared to be ``fundamentally sympathetic to

what the White House and the C.I.A. wanted to do,'' recalled

Philip Zelikow, a former top State Department official. At

interagency meetings on detention and interrogation, Mr.

Addington was at times ``vituperative,'' said Mr. Zelikow,

but Mr. Bradbury, while taking similar positions, was

``professional and collegial.''

While waiting to learn whether he would be nominated to

head the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Bradbury was in an

awkward position, knowing that a decision contrary to White

House wishes could kill his chances.

Charles J. Cooper, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel

under President Reagan, said he was ``very troubled'' at the

notion of a probationary period.

``If the purpose of the delay was a tryout, I think they

should have avoided it,'' Mr. Cooper said. ``You're implying

that the acting official is molding his or her legal analysis

to win the job.''

Mr. Bradbury said he made no such concessions. ``No one

ever suggested to me that my nomination depended on how I

ruled on any opinion,'' he said. ``Every opinion I've signed

at the Office of Legal Counsel represents my best judgment of

what the law requires.''

Scott Horton, an attorney affiliated with Human Rights

First who has closely followed the interrogation debate, said

any official offering legal advice on the campaign against

terror was on treacherous ground.

``For government lawyers, the national security issues they

were deciding were like working with nuclear waste--extremely

hazardous to their health,'' Mr. Horton said. ``If you give

the administration what it wants, you'll lose credibility in

the academic community,'' he said. ``But if you hold back,

you'll be vilified by conservatives and the administration.''

In any case, the White House grew comfortable with Mr.

Bradbury's approach. He helped block the appointment of a

liberal Ivy League law professor to a career post in the

Office of Legal Counsel. And he signed the opinion approving

combined interrogation techniques.

Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he

advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the

attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant

about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.

Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey's opposition might have

killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-

described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare

administration official who was willing to confront Mr.

Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr.

Comey stated that ``no lawyer'' would endorse Mr. Yoo's

justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred,

saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey

shot back: ``No good lawyer,'' according to someone present.

But under Mr. Gonzales, and after the departure of Mr.

Goldsmith and other allies, the deputy attorney general found

himself isolated. His troublemaking on N.S.A. and on

interrogation, and in appointing his friend Patrick J.

Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case,

which would lead to the perjury conviction of I. Lewis Libby,

Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, had irreparably offended the

White House.

``On national security matters generally, there was a sense

that Comey was a wimp and that Comey was disloyal,'' said one

Justice Department official who heard the White House talk,

expressed with particular force by Mr. Addington.

Mr. Comey provided some hints of his thinking about

interrogation and related issues in a speech that spring.

Speaking at the N.S.A.'s Fort Meade campus on Law Day--a

noteworthy setting for the man who had helped lead the

dissent a year earlier that forced some changes in the N.S.A.

program--Mr. Comey spoke of the ``agonizing collisions'' of

the law and the desire to protect Americans.

``We are likely to hear the words: `If we don't do this,

people will die,' '' Mr. Comey said. But he argued that

government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great

institutions.

``It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say `no'

when it matters most,'' he said. ``It takes moral character.

It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence

under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this

country.''

Mr. Gonzales's aides were happy to see Mr. Comey depart in

the summer of 2005. That June, President Bush nominated Mr.

Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel, which some

colleagues viewed as a sign that he had passed a loyalty

test. Soon Mr. Bradbury applied his practical approach to a

new challenge to the C.I.A.'s methods.

The administration had always asserted that the C.I.A.'s

pressure tactics did not amount to torture, which is banned

by federal law and international treaty. But officials had

privately decided the agency did not have to comply with

another provision in the Convention Against Torture--the

prohibition on ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading'' treatment.

Now that loophole was about to be closed. First Senator

Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and then Senator

John McCain, the Arizona Republican who had been tortured as

a prisoner in North Vietnam, proposed legislation to ban such

treatment. At the administration's request, Mr. Bradbury

assessed whether the proposed legislation would outlaw any

C.I.A. methods, a legal question that had never before been

answered by the Justice Department.

At least a few administration officials argued that no

reasonable interpretation of ``cruel, inhuman or degrading''

would permit the most extreme C.I.A. methods, like

waterboarding. Mr. Bradbury was placed in a tough spot, said

Mr. Zelikow, the State Department counselor, who was working

at the time to rein in interrogation policy. ``If Justice

says some practices are in violation of the C.I.D.

standard,'' Mr. Zelikow said, referring to cruel, inhuman or

degrading, ``then they are now saying that officials broke

current law.''

In the end, Mr. Bradbury's opinion delivered what the White

House wanted: a statement that the standard imposed by Mr.

McCain's Detainee Treatment Act would not force any change in

the C.I.A.'s practices, according to officials familiar with

the memo. Relying on a Supreme Court finding that only

conduct that ``shocks the conscience'' was unconstitutional,

the opinion found that in some circumstances not even

waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading,

if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial

intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials

familiar with the legal finding said.

In a frequent practice, Mr. Bush attached a statement to

the new law when he signed it, declaring his authority to set

aside the restrictions if they interfered with his

constitutional powers. At the same time, though, the

administration responded to pressure from Mr. McCain and

other lawmakers by reviewing interrogation policy and giving

up several C.I.A. techniques.

Since late 2005, Mr. Bradbury has become a linchpin of the

administration's defense of counterterrorism programs,

helping to negotiate the Military Commissions Act last year

and frequently testifying about the N.S.A. surveillance

program. Once, he answered questions about administration

detention policies for an ``Ask the White House'' feature on

a Web site.

Mr. Kmiec, the former Office of Legal Counsel head now at

Pepperdine, called Mr. Bradbury's public activities a

departure for an office that traditionally has shunned any

advocacy role.

A senior administration official called Mr. Bradbury's

active role in shaping legislation and speaking to Congress

and the press ``entirely appropriate'' and consistent with

past practice. The official, who spoke on the condition of

anonymity, said Mr. Bradbury ``has played a critical role in

achieving greater transparency'' on the legal basis for

detention and surveillance programs.

Though President Bush repeatedly nominated Mr. Bradbury as

the Office of Legal Counsel's assistant attorney general,

Democratic senators have blocked the nomination. Senator

Durbin said the Justice Department would not turn over copies

of his opinions or other evidence of Mr. Bradbury's role in

interrogation policy.

``There are fundamental questions about whether Mr.

Bradbury approved interrogation methods that are clearly

unacceptable,'' Mr. Durbin said.

John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy's top lawyer from

1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal

opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious,

potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling

prisoners.

``I know from the military that if you tell someone they

can do a little of this for the country's good, some people

will do a lot of it for the country's better,'' Mr. Hutson

said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that

official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger

Americans in the future.

``The problem is, once you've got a legal opinion that says

such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people

is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?''

he asked.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 704, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 reauthorizes two existing commissions and establishes three new commissions. The two existing commissions, one, the Delta Regional Commission, was created through the appropriation process, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission was established some time ago, but we establish three new regional economic development commissions: The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission.

The purpose of the regional commission approach to economic development is a recognition that economic difficulties don't stop at political dividing lines, county lines, State lines, that they transcend our political boundaries, that the economic development problems are grouped by region. By economy, if you will.

Some years ago, we had the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission linking the upper peninsula of Michigan, the upper counties of Wisconsin and the northern tier of Minnesota. They had in common forestry, wood, wood fiber industries, fisheries, travel/tourism and Great Lakes ports connected to the international economy through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Projects conceived by the Upper Great Lakes Commission were to be linked to the commonality of regional economic difficulties the three States experienced. The same with Appalachia coal; the attendant difficulties of the coal sector of our economy stretched across State boundaries and linked the entire Appalachian region with their forestry difficulties as well and also with their need for surface transportation development. That is the principle that is extended to the three new commissions, the Southeast Crescent, the Southwest Border and the Northern Border Commission.

The Delta Regional Commission is one that has unique problems, exacerbated and at the same time underscored by the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. All of the counties, or I should say most of the counties, and parishes in Louisiana, in that region suffered common economic problems. Creating an economic development structure on a regional basis will join the resources and the forces of these States, the counties and the parishes, to bring forth new ideas that will benefit not just one community, not just one parish, but a commonality of parishes, a commonality of counties and a commonality of the States.

In this legislation, we establish a structure, a common framework for administration and management modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission but also modeled after the difficulties we experienced in previous regional economic development commissions in the sixties and seventies and early eighties. We need standard procedures. We need a voting structure. We need standard procedures for staffing, standards that establish conditions under which conflicts of interest can be evaluated and avoided. Commonality establishment of local economic development districts, a consistent method for distributing economic development funds, a uniform set of procedures that will apply to all of the commission, and, finally, with commonality then we can have uniform evaluation standards of the results of these commissions. And it will be the purpose of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to hold intensive oversight hearings as these commissions get under way with their work, they are funded, and we will want to hold them accountable, we will want to see their record of success, and I am quite confident, given the grassroots-up nature of establishment of planning and mission of these commissions, that there will be great success stories.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the very distinguished Chair of our Subcommittee on Economic Development and other subject matters, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia who presided over the hearings and whose steady hands shaped this legislation. I am greatly appreciative of her splendid work.

I will then yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and admiration for the time that he devoted personally and committed to the hearings, both in the past Congress and in this Congress, and for his consolidation of the interests of the various Members on the Republican side. We really developed a very strong bipartisan initiative as a result of the gentleman's diligent efforts.

And to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who also worked within the Louisiana and Mississippi delegations, did extraordinary yeoman's work bringing disparate issues, interests and personalities together which have resulted in this successful initiative we have today.

I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), a strong advocate for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and I yield myself 15 seconds to explain that, through a clerical error, unfortunately, I regret and I apologize to the gentleman, his name was not included in the cosponsors of the reintroduced bill or bill reported from the Rules Committee. I just want it known that the gentleman has, from the outset, been a vigorous supporter of this legislation. His name should have been listed as a cosponsor.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes), who has, Mr. Speaker, been a tireless advocate. He has worn me out, frankly, advocating for this commission.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Missouri have any further speakers besides himself?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I express my great appreciation to Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the full committee, and especially to Mr. Graves, who devoted so much time to the hearings, to the diligent effort within the committee of shaping and crafting this bill.

In the matter of adding counties that were not in the original commissions' proposals, we adhered to a very strict principle, that is, the additions had to conform with unemployment rate significantly above national average, per capita income rates that were significantly below national average rates, and out-migrations. In all cases, the counties recommended by the gentleman from Missouri, the parishes by the gentleman from Louisiana, and the gentleman from Mississippi all conformed when we got updated census information.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have here a splendid structure, one in which we can achieve accountability, one in which there already is success. In a report the committee received just this morning from the Delta Regional Commission on cumulative projects over the last year, the leveraging ratio is 16 to 1. That is for every $1 the commission invested in projects within the region, $16 additional in private sector and non-Federal funds have been invested. That is an extraordinary success ratio, and we want to ensure that that success will continue and will be extended to all of the commissions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a resounding affirmative vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, it is well known, has been debated many times in this body, that a motion to recommit that uses the term ``promptly'' is simply a motion to kill the bill by sending it back to committee, where it will take weeks to then return it to the House floor. Why an initiative to try to kill this legislation would be offered is puzzling to me, since there was no opposition to the legislation in subcommittee, full committee.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago when the bill was debated on the suspension calendar, no one rose in opposition to the bill. There was no opposition raised to the legislation this afternoon. So the motion to recommit on the merits of the term ``promptly'' is clearly an effort to send it back to committee, kill the bill.

But I point out, since the gentleman offering the motion referred to initiatives by the Democratic majority to have accountability, on page 17 of the bill, section 15-306, Personal Financial Interests, conflicts of interest, we address the issue of personal conflict of interest, of integrity of personnel employed by the commission in either the Federal co-chairman's office or the State co-chairman's office, and establish very clear obligations for reporting and excluding of such activity. Furthermore, under general Federal legislation, lobbying by a Federal Government agency of the Congress is not permitted.

So this is a non sequitur motion. It does not accomplish anything except the purpose of sending the bill back to committee and, in effect, killing it by delay. Again, I repeat, there was no opposition registered. When the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure considered this bill in subcommittee, in full committee markup, when it came to the floor under suspension of the rules, nor was there any opposition today, why there would be a motion of this nature to kill the bill is beyond me.

Furthermore, there are restraints, very explicit language on personal financial interest, conflict of interest not allowed; and, in general, Federal law, Federal agencies are prohibited from retaining a lobbyist, to pay expenses for lobbying.

Mr. Speaker, this is a transparent effort to try to kill the bill rather than deal with it on its merits. So I oppose the motion to recommit with instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I understand the gentleman from Maine, who is a major sponsor of this bill, has a hearing. In deference to him, I will wait until after he finishes and yield my time at this time to him, if it is all right with the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments of our chairman, especially as regards our ranking member, Mr. Graves, who worked closely with me on this bill to ensure its profoundly bipartisan nature as counties, regardless of part of the country, regardless of who represents them, were selected based on very objective and competitive criteria. I appreciate the bipartisan support that he helped round up and the bipartisan support of so many Members of Congress.

I'm going to ask that my full statement be in the Record, and say only a few words, first about the chairman. It needs to be mentioned where this all started. It started with the extraordinary chairman of the full committee decades ago, when he created the notion of a bill to address the most impoverished sections of the country, beginning with, of course, the classic one that everyone knows, Appalachia. All we're doing here is expanding on Mr. Oberstar's work.

I must say, so much that has happened in our committee is emblematic of his career. It will be hard to say what his signature bill is; but knowing him, I think he would probably want this bill to rise up among them because of who benefits, those who have least benefited from the most prosperous economy the world has ever known.

This bill is back here by popular demand, and I use that in the technical sense of the word. The subcommittee

was besieged by Members saying, We want commissions, How come we don't have a commission, and then coming forward with statistics to show that, under the definition of persistent poverty, they now qualified. It wasn't easy to get a commission or to get in this bill, with one of the counties included in this bill. We held hearings, and we used very objective criteria that you had to fit in order for us, after the hearings, after full study to say, yes, that county, among many in the United States that are suffering today, should have the special attention of a regional commission.

And we think, Mr. Speaker, that as the global economy has expanded throughout our country because of all the pressures, the natural pressures that come from that and from international trade, many came forward and wanted to be included as part of these commissions. But we held to the criteria set when the Oberstar bill was first passed: there had to be systemic poverty. And the region or the county, in order to be included, had to be clearly underdeveloped relative to what was possible. And so you had only two commissions, and then you have three added now.

When it comes to poverty, there is always controversy about what works. And this time we really know what works because this bill is patterned on the very successful, indeed the acclaimed, Appalachian Regional Commission. And the bill itself simply wants to make sure that administrative procedures and methods for distributing the economic development funds are uniform. When you consider that most of the funds that will flow to these regions far and away are private funds, one has to really look at this bill as a small public investment for enormous returns in private attraction and investment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word to extricate ourselves from the stereotypes about certain regions, like the northern border region which stretches from Maine to New York. We're talking about a region that some might consider in light of large cities in the region; but if you look as the commission methodology looks at counties in the region, you will understand why the northern border qualifies: few basic industries, overdependence in today's economy on agriculture, and 12.5 percent of the population living in poverty.

Or take the southeastern region of the United States, the Sunbelt, which everyone associates with economic growth, and well you might. But these are also the States which have historically most lagged behind the national economy.

And so we have regions in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. And the reason we have them, of course, is that on top of industrial and technological underdevelopment, this is the region in the United States that has natural disasters at a rate of two or three times the rest of the country.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, of all of the aspects of this bill, I think that which has been embraced most by our committee is the record of private investment in the region once we designate a commission and once it begins to operate.

It really does tell us much about the ``blessing of the Federal Government'' and the methodology used by this commission. It tells us much about the reputation of what these commissions have done.

I have been in Congress 16 years. I have seldom sat in hearings where people came forward not with criticisms but with glowing examples of how a specific approach to poverty in our country works. I therefore strongly recommend the bill. I commend all of those, of whom there are dozens, who had a hand in its design.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3246 amends title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severly economically distressed regions in the Nation.

H.R. 3246 the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, authorizes two existing comissions and three new regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management, and further provides a framework for good decision making and planning. These Commissions are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in their respective regions. The five commissions are: the Delta Regional Commission, the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission.

This bill models the administrative and management procedures for these five Comissions after the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission. The bill provides for a voting structure, provisions regarding staffing, conflicts of interest, local development districts, and other matters designed to produce a standard administrative framework. By providing a uniform set of procedures, this bill provides a consistent method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance and ensures a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely distressed regions in the country.

The Northern Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission have been proposed in legislation introduced in this and previous Congresses and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in those regions. Additional, the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Commission would be reauthorized through this legislation.

H.R. 3246 authorizes funds for each commission to provide vital assistance for the development of our Nation's most chronically poor and distressed regions.

I would like to say of few words about the uniqueness of each of the new commissions being authorized by this bill. The Southwest border region includes all counties within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. This region contains 11 counties in New Mexico, 65 counties in Texas, 10 counties in Arizona, and 7 counties in California for a combined population of approximately 29 million. According to research compiled by the Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border: 20 percent of the residents in this region of the nation live below the poverty level, unemployment rates often reach as high as five times the national unemployment rate, and a lack of adequate access to capital has created economic disparities and made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region.

The Northern border region stretching from Maine to New York, while abundant in natural resources and rich in potential, lags behind much of the Nation in its economic growth, and its people have not shared properly in the Nation's prosperity. The region's historic reliance on a few basic industries and agriculture has failed to provide a diverse enough economic base for vigorous, self-sustaining growth. In the belt of counties along the Northern border from Maine through New York, 12.5 percent of the population lives in poverty, median household income is more than $6,500 below the national average, unemployment through layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries is persistent, and the population only grew by 0.6 percent between 1990 and 2000, while the U.S. population rose by 13.2 percent, showing significant out migration and loss of young people.

The southeastern portion of the United States, encompassing the states of Virgina, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, is an area which has seen poverty rates well above the national average coupled with record unemployment. The region has also experienced natural disasters at a rate of two to three times greater than any other region of the U.S. The SouthEast Crescent Authority (SECA) authorizes a local-state-federal partnership to lift citizens in this geographic area out of poverty and create jobs. With the federal allocation of funding, SECA seeks to funnel monies to programs which address one or more of the following criteria for community betterment: (1) infrastructure, (2) education and job training, (3) health care, (4) entrepreneurship, and (5) leadership development. Those communities with the greatest need will be targeted, and grants will be made according to the degree of distress.

This bill has broad bi-partisan support, and the Committee has held a series of hearings regarding the need for these economic development commissions.

I support the bill and urge the passage of H.R. 3246.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 704 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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.

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.

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.

We have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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.

This bill today.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 reauthorizes two economic development commissions, the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission. The bill also creates three new commissions, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission and the Northern Border Regional Commission.

First, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton for working with me to add several counties in northwest Missouri to the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission and for working with other members of the committee to add their counties to the bill as well. I appreciate it very much.

The Northern Great Plains Regional Commission borders my district in the north and the west. The counties added by this bill are contiguous to the counties in the commission. Additionally, these northwest Missouri counties are experiencing problems similar to the counties in the commission already, yet they have higher levels of economic distress.

The Northern Great Plains Regional Commission will set the stage for economic growth by creating an effective Federal-State partnership for attracting new businesses, creating new jobs and developing the infrastructure in northwest Missouri. The commission will encourage local economic development by making use of local resources for the benefit of the community. The commission is designed to successfully leverage other public and private funds, providing northwest Missouri with a very valuable economic development tool.

Economic development plays a very vital role in maintaining our rural way of life by keeping folks in those communities and keeping that culture alive. A major component to economic development is the build- out of broadband services throughout many regions in the country.

No matter where you live, broadband can bring a world of opportunities and possibilities to your doorstep. It is imperative to our rural way of life that we push broadband out to every corner of the country. Where you live should not limit your opportunities for education, commerce, and medical care.

Many citizens in rural America's small communities do not have broadband access at a reasonable cost. It should be available to everyone no matter where they live at a reasonable rate. Through this legislation and other efforts that my colleagues and I have taken on, grants will be available to further establish an infrastructure that can support this important tool to rural economic development.

Additionally, I must commend two members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Boustany, who have been tireless advocates for their districts. I would like to recognize Mr. Hayes for his dedication to stimulating economic development and job promotion in the State of North Carolina and leading efforts to create the Southeast Crescent Authority.

Additionally, he has championed efforts to recruit new industry and create new jobs while sharpening the competitive proficiency of existing industries in the Eighth Congressional District of North Carolina.

Mr. Boustany has also worked tirelessly to promote development and create opportunities for communities in

his district and has been a leader on the issue for the entire State of Louisiana.

Again, thank you, Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Norton for working with Members and working with me to bring this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I know we have a few speakers out there, so I will cut mine short.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). He has worked tirelessly for his district. And since, not so much Hurricane Katrina, but Hurricane Rita, which devastated his district, he has been working very hard to bring some economic development to his district.

I yield such time as he may consume for his remarks.

I don't. Just my own final words before the chairman closes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard now from folks talking about Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, myself from Missouri; and I think folks can see that we have a lot of areas in the United States that are very economically distressed, and for various reasons. Every one of those regions, and, traditionally the Appalachia region, are distressed for different reasons. This bill allows these commissions to leverage public and private dollars. It is a great partnership.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to add counties in northwest Missouri. It is very important to the folks there. I know he has been working on various aspects of these commissions for a long, long time. I appreciate his expertise and his willingness to be very open in this process and work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.