Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this year, Save the Children marks its 75th year of service to children. This is certainly an achievement worth celebrating--and Save the Children did so last night at an Anniversary Benefit in New York City. Seventy-five years ago, a group of concerned business people first gathered in New York City to respond to the needs of children in Appalachia, hit hard by the Great Depression. Save the Children USA began with a hot lunch program for undernourished schoolchildren in rural Kentucky. This brought about an almost immediate rise in attendance and academic achievement, and the program became one of the models for the Federal school lunch program. Throughout its history, Save the Children has focused on transforming children's lives by providing families and communities with the tools they need to break the cycle of poverty. And Save the Children continues to respond to crises resulting from conflicts or natural disasters. Save the Children's mission remains the same in war-torn Afghanistan, tsunami-stricken Indonesia and the United States' coastal area hit by Hurricane Katrina. In addition to 12 states in the U.S., Save the Children is now in more than 50 countries.

Today, when one in every six children in the U.S. are still living in poverty, and one-third of American children and adolescents are either obese or at risk of becoming obese, Save the Children remains hard at work in rural communities providing literacy, physical activity and nutrition, and early childhood support to children in need. Save the Children is working in some of the Nation's poorest communities: in Appalachia, the Southeast, the Mississippi River Delta, the Gulf Coast, the Southwest and California's Central Valley. In rural communities like these, 2.6 million children live in poverty, and many lack access to the recreational opportunities and affordable, fresh produce they need to sustain healthy lives.

Save the Children's international programs began in the 1940's with sponsorships of children caught in the crossfire of World War II. Today, Save the Children reaches the world's

most marginalized children--those who urgently need education, health services, nutrition and economic security to survive and thrive in more than 50 countries around the world. Half as many children under age 5 die each year as compared to 1960 and the number of children who can read and write has increased by nearly 50 percent. Save the Children has played a lead role in some unprecedented global successes for children over the years. Yet, there is still much more work to be done. More than 600,000 children in developing countries live in families that must survive on less than $1 a day. Moreover, 77 million children around the world are out of school, and 28,000 children under the age of 5 die each and every day. That is not acceptable. Save the Children has launched initiatives to tackle these challenges.

I am proud Save the Children has its headquarters in the Fourth Congressional District, in Westport, Connecticut, and applaud them for their accomplishments over the last 75 years. I also appreciate the leadership of Charlie MacCormack and look forward to witnessing the future lasting, positive changes Save the Children will make in the lives of children. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing and supporting this fine organization and their noteworthy mission.

Madam Speaker, on September 5, 2007, I missed 1 recorded vote. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 853.

Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2007, I missed 3 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 862, ``no'' on recorded vote 863 and ``yea'' on recorded vote 864.

I appreciate you holding this very important dialogue about Iraq. I appreciate your taking this Special Order to share what many of us have seen in Iraq.

I want to say that I go where the truth takes me, even if it counters something I believed and thought. I just go where the truth takes us. There is no question that 2003 was not a good year. When we attacked Iraq, there was tremendous euphoria and then we made mistake after mistake after mistake. Those have already been discussed. Half of 2004 wasn't particularly good, but when we transferred power to the new Iraqi Government, the Iraqi people, we began to see noticeable changes.

And then 2005 was a pretty amazing year. They had an election to create a government that would form a constitutional convention. They met the deadline to form a constitutional convention. They wrote their Constitution and adopted it in a plebiscite throughout Iraq, and then they elected a government under that new Constitution. So 2005 was a pretty astonishing year, a very successful year.

They basically had 18 months of progress from the deep hole we dug in

2003 and part of 2004, and then came 2006. It took them 4 months to establish a government, and then the Maliki government didn't do the kind of heavy lifting we were hoping they would do.

I took a position that I took then and hold today, that we need to prod the Maliki government. I believe the timeline is important, but not a timeline based on basically pulling the rug out from them and just leaving. We attacked them. They didn't attack us. We got rid of all their army, their police and their border patrol. We left them totally defenseless in a country where all their prisoners were let out, and then we would walk away? The neighbors to Iraq said we may not have wanted you to go in, in fact, said we did not want you to go in, but it would be an outrage if you left. And so now this is where we're at. Do we leave now? Do we leave sometime in the future? What do we do?

I think that what we knew we needed to do was have a new Secretary of Defense. That's what the American people asked. That's what some of us wanted to see happen, and we got someone who wasn't tied to the past in Mr. Gates. Then I think all of us were hoping and praying that Mr. Petraeus would be the general in charge to serve under Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates. General Petraeus who had been there three times, been involved in this effort, and knows Iraq cold and knows the insurgency concerns extraordinarily well, given that he spent a year of his life just studying it. He basically said, give me more people to see what we could do in the greater Baghdad area. It was referred to as ``the surge.'' He said give me more troops; we need to establish some security, and then we'll reappraise. And now we're coming to that point.

When I was there in December last year, they said we have lost Anbar province. We've just given up on it. We have no troops. It's totally in the hands of al Qaeda, and it sounded to me like a mini-Afghanistan. I go back in April. He said, we're winning Anbar province. I said, what do you mean you are winning Anbar province? You told me you'd given up on it. Well, the Sunni tribal leaders came to us, said we want al Qaeda defeated, we want your help, come on in and we will work with you.

That's what happened. It was a model that wasn't part of the surge, but then when I went back in May, he said the surge is working; we're starting to see some progress from the full complement in July. And when I went back this past August, they said the story is the surge is continuing to go in the right direction, and we have won Anbar province, and we are winning some of the other Sunni provinces. The tribal leaders have bought in to what happened in Anbar and said we want the same thing.

It's almost like, to some of my colleagues in this Chamber, that to say the surge is working and to say that there is progress, it's like they're angry and disappointed: how dare you say that. You had Mr. Baird, a Democrat, who voted against going into Iraq, who said what he saw, and he goes where the truth takes him, was that there is progress, and it would be a mistake to leave prematurely.

So this is what we're going to be debating. Do we leave right now or leave by April of next year or do we maintain the surge a little longer? We know we're ultimately going to bring a good number of our troops home. We can't maintain that surge, and Mr. Carter's right. I have heard more of my constituents who serve in the military and those who don't, who I've met in Iraq. They said we could accept 12 months. Fifteen months is just too much. And I've had parents, they've come up to me, and they never did this in the past. They kind of put their arm around me. They whisper in my ear practically, and they say, my son or my daughter is in Iraq and they're exhausted.

We know that we have to reduce the workload of these troops. We have to start to tell Prime Minister Maliki what he needs to know, and I'll conclude by making this point: we can lecture Prime Minister Maliki all we want. We can do that if we don't mind being the biggest hypocrites around. So why would I say that? Well, we say, why don't you Sunni, Shias and Kurds get your act together, and I'm thinking, Republicans and Democrats can't even work together on this.

We have asked our Democratic colleagues to allow for some amendments, bipartisan amendments, amendments that would have support on both sides of the aisle. They don't want it. They have simply refused to allow any Republican amendment or any amendment that even their own side wants that would have attraction to Republican Members.

Too many on that side of the aisle want to continue to make this a partisan issue when the fact is we went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House of Representatives, three-quarters of the Senate. The only way we're going to successfully disengage in a way that will enable the Iraqis to stand on their own and bring our troops home is if we do it on a bipartisan basis. I'm prepared to vote for some things that I don't want if it is a bipartisan effort that will ultimately lead to some common ground.

So I just want to say that it strikes me that we ask our troops to risk their lives. They have one request from us, that we, Republicans and Democrats, start working together for the common good of this country. That's their one request, and it strikes me that when we lecture Prime Minister Maliki, he's trying to run a government by consensus, Sunni, Shias and Kurds, all agreeing to take action. He could cut out the Sunnis and just simply agree with the Kurds, and they could run the government. The Shias and Kurds, they could get their more than 50 percent vote, but he is making a sincere effort to try to find common ground.

I thank my colleague for having this Special Order. I'd like to listen to my other colleagues, maybe jump back in, but my report to this Congress is this surge is working. My report to this Congress is that the tribal Sunni leaders that have asked us to help have seen a tremendous benefit in their provinces, and that has benefited them. It's benefited the Iraqi people, and it's benefited our troops. And so I can't say what will happen two months from now or four months from now; but as God is my witness, we are seeing progress in Iraq, as much as some of my colleagues don't want me to say that.

I go every 3 to 4 months, and I've been there 18 times.

Well, you've been going more recently. I got elected before you.

I wonder if the gentleman would yield a second.

Just to point out to him that what you're encountering is significant. When the Iraqis say to us, be patient, give us more time, what I encountered early on was they were constantly blaming the other groups. The Shiias would blame the Sunnis, the Sunnis would blame the Kurds, and so on. But what they're starting to do is they're trying to say, we're trying to work out our differences; give us more time to work together. And that's a significant change.

I likened this to a sixth-grade dance when they first started out. They didn't know how to interact with each other. But they're starting to learn how to interact. They're starting to be defensive of Iraq and speaking more with one voice; and I think it's not an insignificant event that's taking place.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The Iraqis would say to me, How dare you say we are not a country. We are the Fertile Crescent where two great rivers have met. We have been the center of Western civilization. And for us to say they are not a real country, for them they find it very insulting.

Mr. Chairman, I am here to offer that amendment that is printed in the House report.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am grateful that the House Rules Committee has made this amendment in order. This amendment would reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program to $1.2 billion for 2007 and $1.4 billion in 2008 through 2012. What that does is basically double the authorization level for weatherization.

The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. It is this country's longest running energy efficiency program. During the last 30 years, it has provided weatherization services to more than 5.5 million low-income families. An audit is done and then corrective action is taken on a home.

I would just conclude by saying that in my own home I have a third floor. It is my office. It was insulated and it had heating but I froze. I tripled the size of this third floor, had no heating whatsoever, and the space was warmer than when I had heating; in fact, it was a comfortable temperature, just because of the insulation that we were able to put in the roof above this floor.

We want low-income families to be able to take advantage of this important weatherization effort.

This amendment would reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program to $1.2 billion for 2007 and $1.4 billion in 2008 through 2012.

The program is currently authorized at $600 million for FY07 and $700 million for FY08.

The bill calls for $600 million for FY07 and $750 million for FY08 through 2012.

My amendment would double these authorization levels ($1.2 billion in 2007 and $1.4 billion from 2008 to 2012).

The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient.

It is this country's longest running energy efficiency program. During the last 30 years, it has provided weatherization services to more than 5.5 million low-income families.

Through this program, weatherization service providers install energy efficiency measures in the homes of qualifying homeowners free of charge.

These are not expensive upgrades but they are effective, and energy savings pay for the upgrades within a few years.

The average expenditure limit is $2,826 per home.

Funding for low-income weatherization comes from several sources and represents a partnership of both public and private organizations. The largest contribution has come from the DOE.

The second largest source is LIHEAP, followed by gas and electric companies, and legal penalties assessed against oil companies.

DOE works directly with the states, the District of Columbia, and Native American Tribal

Governments to implement weatherization measures. These agencies contract with local governmental or nonprofit agencies to deliver weatherization services to low-income clients in their areas. Funding is allocated for both weatherizing individual homes and for the training and development of local technicians.

Weatherization includes a comprehensive series of energy efficiency measures by analyzing each individual home. Adding weather-stripping to doors and windows saves energy.

Families notice, on average, a decrease of $200 to $250 per year in energy bill savings.

There are also other non-energy benefits.

Many low-income households live in older homes that have structural hazards that are detected while weatherizing. By reducing long-term energy costs, weatherization also makes these housing units more affordable.

In addition, the DOE estimates that the Weatherization Assistance Program employs 8,000 people nationwide.

One of the challenges of making one's home energy efficient is that many of these technologies and home improvements are unaffordable. Yet the subcommittee on energy and water appropiations noted that the Committee was ``concerned that the Department has severely under-funded this program, which almost immediately results in significant energy savings in American homes.''

We know that investing in weatherization measures will reduce everyone's energy bills over time by reducing the amount of energy that we all use. The Weatherization Assistance Program is one of our most successful programs, and I urge support of this amendment.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the gentleman for his support.

I yield to my colleague.

I thank the gentleman very much for his contribution.

I'm happy to yield back and urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I waited 20 years for a debate like this, so thank you to this Congress.

I live, all of us live, in the greatest country in the world; but we consume and waste too much energy and we are vulnerable to oil-rich states in a part of the world that would do us harm. We need to work towards energy independence, freedom from declining energy sources, freedom from nations who would do us harm.

Thirteen years to reach 11 percent renewable and 4 percent efficiency that is doable. We need to set this goal and then strive every day to reach it. And it is not as hard as the opponents would have us believe.

Biomass, which includes so much, incremental hydropower, solar and solar water heating, wind, ocean tidal, geothermal, distributed energy, PURPA-qualified facilities. This is a goal we can reach. At least we should strive to reach it. We have 13 years to do it, and we need to start today.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Trumbull High School Golden Eagle Marching Band on hosting their 25th Annual Fall Classic Bank Competition.

On this silver anniversary, we commemorate the legacy of the band promoting music education through competition. For almost 40 years now, the Golden Eagle Marching Band has been known as one of the premiere marching bands in the country.

The band has represented the State of Connecticut at the 2004 Hollywood Christmas Parade in California and the 54th Presidential Inauguration Parade in 2001. It has also been at the top of the Musical Arts Conference since its inception in 2001 and has won countless awards along the way. In 2006, the band was champion of its division for the third year.

These young musicians benefited from hundreds of hours of practice, competitions, and most importantly memories that last a lifetime. Even after the fall sports season ends, come December, the music does not stop. Band members continue to bring credit to Trumbull High School by competing in Winter Guard International competitions. In 2007, both groups were finalists in the scholastic world class and in 2005, the winter guard placed third in the country in the scholastic open class.

None of this would be possible without the hard work and dedication of staff members and band parents over many years. These unsung heroes keep this organization on the field day in and day out. Without their tremendous support, the Eagles could not have soared to the heights we see today.

The Trumbull High School Golden Eagle Marching Band has raised the bar for future generations to proudly represent Trumbull High School and the State of Connecticut. These individuals on the field have embodied hard work, a positive attitude, and concentration. The State of Connecticut is proud of their hard work.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H. Res. 476, a bill originally introduced by Representative Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. It is a continuation of closed rules on an issue that should be a very open. We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis; that cannot be denied. Two-thirds of the House voted to go into Iraq, three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq.

The Senate is allowing open debate on the issue of Iraq. There was the Webb-Hagel amendment, which is basically this underlying bill. There was the Hagel-Levin amendment, which talked about troops not being sent in for more than 12 months if they are in the Army and 7 months if they are in the Marines. That was an amendment I would have liked to have introduced to this bill. Why couldn't we have had a debate on it? If it doesn't make sense, and there would have been a number on my side of the aisle who would have voted against it, it would have defeated it. But we would have started to have some dialogue about the condition of our troops. That would be a healthy thing to have.

But the most important amendment that was presented was the effort by Mr. Wolf to have support for the Iraq Study Group. The thing that is astonishing is, when we voted about the Iraq Study Group a few weeks ago, only 69 Members in the Chamber voted against it, but it was attached to an appropriation. And being attached to an appropriation, we can't get the Senate to act until Lord knows when, probably after October when we are supposed to have our budgets done. We need another vehicle.

Absolutely.

I thank the gentleman for making this point. The bottom line is: In this Chamber, only 69 Members voted against having the Iraq Study Group revisit Iraq so they could come out with a report that could complement, either agree with or disagree with, what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to conclude.

It seems to me it would be in the best interest of both Republicans and Democrats to find areas where we can agree, where we can work together. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this Democratic Congress is opposed to bringing the Iraq Study Group up for a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to the Farm Bill Extension Act for a number of reasons, including the extension of our depression era system of quotas and commodity support payments. One issue I particularly want to highlight is the opportunity we have missed here to make meaningful strides towards establishing the humane treatment of farm animals. I am disappointed that there are no provisions in this bill that work to this end.

I believe that there is a need to encourage agriculture companies to work towards adding protections for farm animals into their work practices. Billions of animals are raised for food every year in the United States, giving our families nourishment and helping feed the world. But there is no Federal law regarding the humane treatment of the animals while they are on the farm.

On March 28, 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio and I introduced the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act. This legislation that would require that those supplying food to the Federal Government--including the military, federal prisons, school lunches, and other programs--meet a basic set of modest welfare standards for farm animals.

The humane treatment of animals speaks to our Nation's core values. Modest standards preventing Federal suppliers from engaging in the most inhumane current industrial farming practices is a step in the right direction.

In 1958 Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, deciding that farm animals deserve a merciful death. Half a century later, we must take steps towards giving them a merciful life on the farm. And just as the Federal Government already imposes numerous standards on contractors, including wage and labor requirements and fuel economy standards for government vehicles, we believe it's time to have basic humane standards for food purchased with tax dollars.

I urge opposition to this legislation.

I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate his work.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come here today. It's amazing, this suspension calendar has so many big bills. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee points out this is important legislation that we are discussing. It may be on the suspension calendar, but that's only because there is unanimity. There is a feeling on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, supporting these bills, as well as the White House.

We will be dealing with the Darfur Accountability Divestment Act of 2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. We are going to be expressing a sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into the sex trade. We are going to be urging the Government of Canada to end the outrageous commercial sea hunts. We will be amending the Iran Sanctions Act, and we will have a Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act, these brave men, in particular, and women, who basically risked their lives going back and forth to Europe and haven't gotten the recognition they deserve.

But let me speak specifically to Darfur. I rise in support of H.R. 180, which supports State, city and university efforts to divest funds or restrict investment in companies that conduct business operations in Sudan.

First, let me say I have tremendous respect for all those who have worked to raise awareness of this important issue, student groups and faith-based organizations, especially from the African-American, Jewish and Armenian communities have done a wonderful job, a really outstanding job of educating their fellow citizens and lawmakers about the crisis and the need to respond.

In addition, this body owes a debt of gratitude to Representative Barbara Lee, Representative Frank Wolf, Chairman Tom Lantos and Chairman Barney Frank, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Ranking Member Mr. Bachus and others who have kept the genocide of Darfur in our forefront and consciousness.

The world collectively agreed to never again allow genocide after the Holocaust and again after the mass murders of Rwanda in 1994. Tragically, genocide is taking place, and the United States must take all reasonable steps to end the killing.

The United States has made a tremendous commitment to the people of Darfur in the form of humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to end the genocide, but more must be done. Divestment is a very serious step for our government to take against a nation that does not threaten our security or the security of our allies.

It is a tool that must be used sparingly, but given the abhorrent crimes that continue to be committed against the Darfuri people, I believe it is a most appropriate act.

The bottom line, as this legislation states, is that no American should have to worry that his or her investment or pension money was earned in support of genocide.

I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 180 and continue our efforts and commitment to end violence in the Sudan.

I want to say, in closing, that we are going to have to consider even more significant acts. One is sanctions, but we may need to consider a no-fly zone, and, frankly, working with others, military force. Obviously we have to use our military sparingly, given their overuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, but can we expect that the African Union can do more than send 7,000 troops? We should be willing to pay for that, and we are.

Can we expect that Europe should be willing to step up and take action? They are rarely willing to, but in this case, I think we should expect they should, especially given their minimal role in Iraq and even their less than full participation in Afghanistan.

Can we expect NATO to step up? That involves the United States. Why not? And that at the very end, if nothing else happens, the U.S.

I was in Darfur in August of 2006, meeting with the governor of Northern Darfur. He was somewhat disturbed by the killings going on in his own country. But when I suggested that we might need to take other action like a no-fly zone, he was indignant. He was outraged. He couldn't accept it. That got his attention. He wasn't particularly concerned that his own people were killing each other with, frankly, the consent of its own government, but he was outraged to think that outside governments might come in and stop it.

We will have to deal with that outrage. We have to stop the killing

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on this legislation and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her work, and, clearly, Chairman Barney Frank and Tom Lantos.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2347 and am grateful to have worked on this legislation with Congressman Tom Lantos and Barney Frank as the chief Republican sponsor.

This legislation will require the U.S. Government to publish a list of companies with investments of more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector and will authorize State and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list.

In addition, H.R. 2347 provides safe harbor from litigation by shareholders for pension fund managers, managers of mutual funds, and corporate pension funds who divest from companies on this list.

When Americans invest, it seems to me they want to know their dollars are not going to prop up the regime in Tehran, a sponsor of terrorism and an avowed enemy of American interests. By allowing State pension funds and mutual funds to more easily divest from energy companies doing business in Iran, this legislation will give investors more choice in directing their investments.

Because I believe military action against Iran, while not off the table, must be an absolute last resort, it is critical our government utilize the tools at our disposal including economic sanctions and a divestment campaign to deter the threat Iran poses to global security.

Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities and is one of the world's most egregious exporters of terrorism. The seriousness of these facts was made clear when Iran's President threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map.''

In addition, last April Ayatollah Khamenei told another of the world's worst human rights abusers, Sudan, that Iran would gladly transfer nuclear technology. He stated: ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge, and technology of its scientists.''

The bottom line is, in defiance of its assurances to the contrary, Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program. The United States must be unequivocal in its rejection of these ambitions and the financial support they require

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 427, urging the Government of Canada to end its commercial seal hunts. While many countries have banned the importation of seal products, seal hunting in Canada has grown steadily in size over the past six years.

The Canadian commercial seal hunt is said to have killed approximately 350,000 seals this year--a huge increase from the 67,500 average number of seal deaths during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The seals are either clubbed to death or shot with high-powered rifles so as not to bloody their fur.

Last year the Canadian Government claimed the seal killings brought in $16 million. I question the number and believe even if it is accurate $16 million does not come close to justifying this brutality.

Sixteen million dollars is a mere fraction of the $3 billion that Canada receives from seafood exports. In addition, commercial seal hunting amounts to less than three percent of the annual incomes of commercial fishermen. Furthermore, the market for seal meat is limited. It is generally considered to be inedible and only a few nations import it for human consumption, additional proof of how wasteful seal hunting truly is.

Canada allows the seal hunt because it allegedly helps provide jobs for the region. Newfoundland experiences unemployment rates of up to 40 percent in winter because of its reliance on seafaring jobs and the collapse of the cod fishing industry. While I am sensitive to these concerns, how can this justify the cruel hunting methods employed during seal hunts. Eyewitness reports indicate numerous violations of Canada's marine mammal hunting regulations, such as baby seals being culled, animals being skinned alive, and injured animals being left behind to die slowly.

H. Res. 427 urges the Canadian government to end commercial seal hunting, putting a stop to this cruel practice. I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 23, I am pleased to support this legislation on the House floor today.

The duty performed by the U.S. Merchant Marines during World War II was courageous and vital to our national interest. H.R. 23 would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly benefit of $l,000 to U.S. Merchant Marine veterans who served in the Army and Navy Transport Services between December 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, or to their survivors.

During World War II, the Army and Navy Transport Services delivered troops and supplies to the front lines. These men often put their lives in danger to keep supplies flowing, but Merchant Marine veterans were not granted benefits under the G.I. Bill of Rights that Congress enacted in 1945.

All those who served in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard were recipients of benefits under the G.I. Bill. The United States Merchant Marine regretfully was not included.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, which would add the Eightmile River to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

This legislation has overwhelming bipartisan support from the National Park Service, the bipartisan Connecticut House delegation, the Republican Governor of Connecticut, the Attorney General of Connecticut, the three local mayors, and the State legislature, which passed a resolution in support of Wild and Scenic designation.

Concerns have been raised that H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, would allow land condemnations within the Eightmile River corridor. This is not the case. The bill prohibits eminent domain, condemnation or any takings.

H.R. 986 also explicitly states: ``The authority of the Secretary to acquire lands for the purposes of this Act shall be limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof, and shall be subject to the additional criteria set forth in the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan.'' This prohibits condemnations regardless of how local zoning laws apply.

The Eightmile River is a worthy addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I strongly urge passage of H.R. 986.